198P Pembrolizumab plus olaparib vs pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy after induction with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC: Patient-reported outcomes from KEYLYNK-009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phase II KEYLYNK-009 (NCT04191135) study evaluated maintenance pembrolizumab (pembro) + olaparib (ola) vs pembro + chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with metastatic TNBC who had clinical benefit from induction with first-line pembro + chemo. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from this study to provide important evidence on the benefit/risk profile of these treatments. Eligible pts received induction therapy with pembro 200 mg Q3W + chemo (carboplatin AUC 2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 per 21-day cycle) for 4–6 cycles. Pts with CR, PR, or SD were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W + ola 300 mg BID or pembro + chemo (induction regimen) for up to 35 cycles (including induction). PROs were secondary endpoints and included changes from randomization (baseline) to week 18 (last time with completion/compliance ∼≥60%/80% in QLQ-C30) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, QLQ-C30 physical and emotional functioning, QLQ-BR23 systemic therapy side effects, and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS). TTD (time from baseline to first onset of a confirmed ≥10-point deterioration) was also assessed. PROs were analyzed in randomized and treated pts who completed ≥1 PRO assessment. No alpha was assigned to PRO analyses. PRO analyses included 267 pts (pembro + ola, n = 135; pembro + chemo, n = 132). Completion/compliance in QLQ-C30 at week 18 was 59.3%/88.9% with pembro + ola and 62.1%/85.4% with pembro + chemo. No between-group differences were observed, except that TTD for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL favored pembro + chemo (Table).Table: 198PBetween-group difference in change from baseline to wk 18 least-squares mean (95% CI)a (Pembro + Ola vs Pembro + Chemo)QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL−3.28 (−7.69 to 1.12)QLQ-C30 physical functioning−0.16 (−4.89 to 4.56)QLQ-C30 emotional functioning2.08 (−3.16 to 7.31)QLQ-BR23 systemic therapy side effects0.93 (−2.20 to 4.06)EQ-5D-5L VAS−0.37 (−4.03 to 3.28)TTD HR (95% CI)b (Pembro + Ola vs Pembro + Chemo)QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL1.78 (1.16–2.71)QLQ-C30 physical functioning1.01 (0.61–1.69)QLQ-C30 emotional functioning1.08 (0.69–1.71)QLQ-BR23 systemic therapy side effects1.76 (0.88–3.53)aBased on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA).bBased on stratified Cox regression model. Open table in a new tab aBased on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA). bBased on stratified Cox regression model. In pts with metastatic TNBC, stopping chemo in pts with responding or stable disease and treating with maintenance pembro + ola showed similar PRO results when compared with pts who continue pembro + chemo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".