Evaluating intermediate endpoints (IE) for overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI): An IMDC study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
400 Background: In Ph3 trials, assessment for primary endpoint of OS necessitates extended follow-up (f/u) periods, larger pool of events, and higher associated costs. We sought to determine if shorter IEs like Time to Treatment Failure (TTF) and Time to Next Therapy (TTNT) are associated with OS in patients (pts) receiving ICI-based trt. Methods: We included all International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) pts who received contemporary approved first line(1L) ICI from 2013 to 2023. IEs were defined from ICI start until drug cessation or death for TTF, and initiation of next line or death for TTNT, or censored at date of last f/u. Associations of OS with TTF and TTNT status at 6-mo landmark were assessed using Cox regression adjusting for IMDC risk groups, metastatic sites, histology, age, and prior nephrectomy, stratified by treatment (trt) and yrs of ICI start. Endpoint associations across all f/u time were evaluated using Kendall’s Tau (KT) correlation by Clayton copula. A KT >0.49 indicates a strong correlation ( Wicklin R., 2023). Results: The cohort consisted of 1667 pts with a median f/u of 15.4 mo (IQR: 7.1-28.6). Median age at 1L start was 63 yrs (IQR: 56-70), with 73% being male and 65% undergoing nephrectomy before starting 1L. 1132 patients received dual ICI, while 535 received an ICI+TKI combination. Pts who discontinued their 1L regimen within the 6-mo landmark demonstrated poor OS, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.74 (95% CI: 2.15-3.49). Additionally, those who transitioned to a 2L therapy within the first 6 mo showed worse OS, reflected by an HR of 2.82 (2.22-3.59). KT correlation with OS across all follow up was 0.49 (0.45, 0.52) for TTF and 0.67 (0.64, 0.69) for TTNT. Consistent results were seen across all subgroups with the strongest association in the ICI+TKI group (Table). Conclusions: TTNT demonstrated the strongest association with OS, particularly in the ICI+TKI subgroup, making it a potentially clinically meaningful intermediate endpoint for evaluating efficacy in ICI-based regimens.[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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".