MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391303561 · doi:10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.2

First-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib for non–clear cell renal carcinomas (nccRCC): Extended follow-up of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-B61 study.

2024· article· en· W4391303561 on OpenAlexaff
Martin H. Voss, Howard Gurney, Vagif Atduev, Cristina Suárez, Miguel Ángel Climent, David Pook, Piotr Tomczak, Philippe Barthélémy, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Taron Nalbandian, V.P. Stus, Thomas Ferguson, Paweł Wiechno, Erhan Gökmen, Louis Lacombe, Craig Gedye, Joseph E. Burgents, Manish Sharma, Jerry Cornell, Laurence Albigès

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenvatinibPembrolizumabMedicineRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineOncologyClear cellPhases of clinical researchCancer researchCancerClinical trialImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) + lenvatinib (lenva) is approved for first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic RCC based on results of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-581/CLEAR study. Previously reported results from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-B61 (NCT04704219) study with a median follow-up of 15 months further support the use of pembro + lenva in the first-line setting specifically across nccRCC. We now report updated results from KEYNOTE-B61 with median follow-up of 23 months. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, advanced nccRCC (histology assessed by investigator) and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 received pembro 400 mg IV Q6W for ≤18 cycles (~2 years) + lenva 20 mg orally once daily until intolerable toxicity, progressive disease, or patient (pt) withdrawal from the study. Primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points included DCR, DOR, and PFS per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, OS, and safety. Results: A total of 158 pts received pembro + lenva. Median age was 60 years (range, 24-87), and the most common histologic variants of RCC were papillary (n = 93; 59%), chromophobe (n = 29; 18%), and unclassified (n = 20; 13%). Median time from first dose to the data cutoff date of July 5, 2023, was 22.8 months (range, 16.6-27.6). 86 pts had discontinued treatment (most commonly due to progressive disease, n = 56 [35%]). In all pts, ORR was 51% (95% CI, 43-59; 13 CRs [8%]; 67 PRs [42%]) and DCR was 82% (95% CI, 75-88). Median DOR was 19.5 months (range, 15.3-not reached [NR]). An estimated 51% of responses had a duration of ≥18 months. ORR and DCR by histology are shown in the table. In all pts, median PFS and OS were 17.9 months (95% CI, 15.1-22.1) and NR (95% CI, NR-NR); estimated 18-month PFS and OS rates were 48% and 73%. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 151 pts (96%), most commonly hypertension (56%), diarrhea (46%), hypothyroidism (41%), and proteinuria (30%). Grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 92 pts (58%), most commonly hypertension (25%), and diarrhea, proteinuria, and decreased weight (5% each). No deaths due to TRAEs were reported. Discontinuation due to TRAEs for pembro, lenva, or both pembro and lenva occurred in 15%, 13% and 4% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Consistent with prior reports, pembro + lenva had durable antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in pts with advanced nccRCC. These results continue to support pembro + lenva as a first-line treatment option for pts with variant histologies of nccRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04704219 . [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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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