MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ADRIATIC: Durvalumab (D) as consolidation treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).

2024· article· en· W4399374116 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Spigel, Ying Cheng, Byoung Chul Cho, К. К. Лактионов, Jian Fang, Yuanbin Chen, Yoshitaka Zenke, Ki Hyeong Lee, Qiming Wang, Alejandro Navarro, E.L. Buchmeier, John W. C. Chang, Isamu Okamoto, Sema Sezgin Göksu, A. Badzio, Bethany Gill, Hema Gowda, Haiyi Jiang, Suresh Senan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabOncologyInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Lung cancerCancerImmunotherapyPembrolizumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA5 Background: The standard of care (SoC) for pts with LS-SCLC is concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) ± prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). ADRIATIC (NCT03703297), a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multicenter, global study, assessed D ± tremelimumab (T) as consolidation tx for pts with LS-SCLC who had not progressed after cCRT. Here we report results for D vs PBO from the first planned interim analysis (IA). Methods: Eligible pts had stage I–III LS-SCLC (stage I/II inoperable) and WHO performance status 0/1, and had not progressed after cCRT. PCI was permitted before randomization. Pts were randomized 1–42 days after cCRT to D 1500 mg + PBO, D 1500 mg + T 75 mg, or PBO + PBO every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 4 cycles, followed by D (D±T arms) or PBO Q4W until investigator-determined progression or intolerable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months (mo). The first 600 pts were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio; subsequent pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to D or PBO. Randomization was stratified by stage (I/II vs III) and receipt of PCI (yes vs no). The dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS (blinded independent central review per RECIST v1.1) for D vs PBO. OS and PFS for D+T vs PBO were alpha-controlled secondary endpoints. Results: 730 pts were randomized, including 264 to D and 266 to PBO. Baseline characteristics and prior tx were well balanced between arms. Radiation schedule in the D vs PBO arms was once daily in 73.9% vs 70.3% of pts and twice daily in 26.1% vs 29.7%; 53.8% of pts in each arm received PCI. At this IA (data cutoff 15Jan2024), median (range) duration of follow-up for OS and PFS in censored pts was 37.2 (0.1–60.9) and 27.6 (0.0–55.8) mo, respectively. OS was significantly improved with D vs PBO (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.57–0.93]; p=0.0104; median OS 55.9 [95% CI 37.3 – not estimable] vs 33.4 [25.5–39.9] mo; 24-mo OS rate 68.0% vs 58.5%; 36-mo OS rate 56.5% vs 47.6%). PFS was also significantly improved with D vs PBO (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.61–0.95]; p=0.0161; median PFS 16.6 [95% CI 10.2–28.2] vs 9.2 [7.4–12.9] mo; 18-mo PFS rate 48.8% vs 36.1%; 24-mo PFS rate 46.2% vs 34.2%). Tx benefit was generally consistent across predefined pt subgroups for both OS and PFS. With D vs PBO, maximum grade 3/4 all-cause adverse events (AEs) occurred in 24.3% vs 24.2% of pts; AEs led to tx discontinuation in 16.3% vs 10.6% of pts and to death in 2.7% vs 1.9%. Any-grade pneumonitis/radiation pneumonitis was reported in 38.0% vs 30.2% of pts with D vs PBO (maximum grade 3/4 in 3.0% vs 2.6%). The D+T arm remains blinded until the next planned analysis. Conclusions: D as consolidation tx after cCRT demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS and PFS compared with PBO in pts with LS-SCLC. D was well tolerated and AEs were consistent with the known safety profile, with no new signals observed. These data support consolidation D as a new SoC for pts with LS-SCLC who have not progressed after cCRT. Clinical trial information: NCT03703297 .

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations46
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207