Abstract GS01-05: Pembrolizumab + Olaparib vs Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy After Induction With Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy for Locally Recurrent Inoperable or Metastatic TNBC: Randomized Open-Label Phase 2 KEYLYNK-009 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus chemotherapy (chemo) showed statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS vs placebo + chemo in patients (pts) with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study. Tolerable and effective maintenance regimens after induction therapy are needed to sustain clinical benefit. The PARP inhibitor olaparib is an established maintenance therapy for multiple platinum-sensitive tumor types and prior data suggest that PARP inhibitors combined with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors could provide an improved therapeutic effect. KEYLYNK-009 (NCT04191135) is a randomized open-label phase 2 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance pembro + olaparib vs pembro + chemo in pts with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC who had clinical benefit from induction with 1L pembro + platinum-based chemo. Methods: Eligible pts with measurable, locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC that had not been previously treated with chemo in the metastatic setting received induction therapy for up to 6 cycles of pembro 200 mg + chemo (carboplatin AUC 2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) every 3 wk (Q3W). Pts with complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) after 4-6 treatment cycles were randomized 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg Q3W + olaparib 300 mg twice daily or pembro + chemo (continued induction regimen). Olaparib or chemo was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity; pembro was continued for up to 35 cycles (including induction treatment), progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by induction response (CR or PR vs SD, by RECIST v1.1), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS < 1), and tumor genomic status (tBRCAm vs tBRCAwt). Dual primary endpoints were PFS per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and OS from randomization in all pts. Secondary endpoints included PFS and OS from randomization in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors and in pts with tBRCAm, and safety. Results: Of the 460 pts who received induction therapy, 271 were randomly assigned to pembro + olaparib (n=135) or pembro + chemo (n=136). At the Dec 15, 2022 data cutoff, median follow-up was 17.2 mo. Maintenance pembro + olaparib did not significantly improve PFS or OS vs pembro + chemo after induction therapy (Table). Median PFS was longer with pembro + olaparib vs pembro + chemo in pts with tBRCAm, but not in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors; a similar trend was observed for OS (Table). In 268 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 114 of 135 pts (84.4%) for pembro + olaparib and in 128 of 133 pts (96.2%) for pembro + chemo. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 44 pts (32.6%) for pembro + olaparib (0 deaths) and in 91 pts (68.4%) for pembro + chemo (2 [1.5%] deaths), with 12 (8.9%) vs 26 (19.5%) discontinuations for TRAEs, respectively. Conclusions: The primary endpoints of PFS and OS were not met in an unselected population of pts with advanced TNBC. However, directionally favorable improvements in PFS and OS were observed in pts with tBRCAm with pembro + olaparib vs pembro + chemo, representing a potential maintenance strategy. Further data are required to confirm this effect. No new safety signals were observed, and there were fewer TRAEs in the pembro + olaparib group vs the pembro + chemo group. PFS and OS were evaluated from the time of randomization. *Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron’s method of tie-handling with treatment as a covariate. NR = not reached. Citation Format: Hope Rugo, Mark Robson, Seock-Ah Im, Florence Dalenc, Eduardo Yañez Ruiz, Young-Hyuck Im, Sergii Kulyk, Oleksandr Dudnichenko, Néstor Llinás-Quintero, Shigehira Saji, Yasuo Miyoshi, Nadia Harbeck, Li Fan, Jaime Mejia, Vassiliki Karantza, David Cescon. Pembrolizumab + Olaparib vs Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy After Induction With Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy for Locally Recurrent Inoperable or Metastatic TNBC: Randomized Open-Label Phase 2 KEYLYNK-009 Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS01-05.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".