MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real world outcomes of first line (1L) nivolumab and ipilimumab (NIVO IPI) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): An update from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).

2024· article· en· W4391302892 on OpenAlexaff
J. Connor Wells, Evan Ferrier, Audreylie Lemelin, Thomas Powles, Sumanta K. Pal, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Neeraj Agarwal, Benoit Beuselinck, Georg A. Bjarnason, Lori Wood, Christina M. Canil, Renée Maria Saliby, Guillermo de Velasco, Rana R. McKay, Ben Tran, Cristina Suárez, Arnoud J. Templeton, Toni K. Choueiri, Daniel Yick Chin Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNivolumabMedicineIpilimumabRenal cell carcinomaExpanded accessInternal medicineOncologyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

395 Background: NIVO IPI is one of several 1L treatment options for mRCC and is limited to intermediate and poor risk disease in many jurisdictions. We report the outcomes of 1L NIVO IPI from the IMDC. Methods: All IMDC patients who received 1L NIVO IPI were retrospectively analyzed. Key outcomes were compared between IMDC risk groups and included overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT; defined as time from 1L initiation to next treatment) and response rates. Conditional OS by 6- and 12-month survival are described. Results: 1145 patients received 1L NIVO IPI, including 94 favourable, 559 intermediate, and 313 poor risk patients. 818/980 (86%) of patients had clear cell histology and 14% had sarcomatoid features. The median follow up was 20.0 months. 837/1145 (73%) patients had stopped 1L NIVO IPI and 363/1145 (32%) were deceased. Key outcomes of interest are summarized in Table 1. Subsequent 2L therapy was received by 438/727 (60%) patients and was most frequently sunitinib (37%) and cabozantinib (28%). 3L therapy was received by 160/477 (34%) patients, most often cabozantinib (29%). Immune related adverse events were documented in 48% (274/572) of patients. Conditional survival analysis showed that if a patient was alive at 6 months after starting 1L NIVO IPI, they had an 81% likelihood of being alive for an additional year and a 68% likelihood of surviving two years. If alive at 12 months, there was an 81% chance of surviving one additional year and 68% chance of surviving two additional years. If a patient remained on 1L NIVO IPI for 6 months, there was a 91% likelihood of being alive for one additional year and 76% likelihood of being alive for two years. If they remained on NIVO IPI for 12 months, there was a 94% chance of being alive for one additional year and an 84% chance of surviving two additional years. Conclusions: This large cohort of real-world patients provides benchmark data for clinical trial design and patient counselling, with a median OS surpassing 50 months for intermediate risk patients.[Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→