MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo in patients (pts) with resectable NSCLC: 4-year update from CheckMate 816.

2024· article· en· W4399451413 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Spicer, Nicolas Girard, Mariano Provencio, Changli Wang, Tetsuya Mitsudomi, Mark M. Awad, Everett E. Vokes, Janis M. Taube, Lorena Lupinacci, Gene Saylors, Fumihiro Tanaka, Moïshe Liberman, Sung Yong Lee, Aurelia Alexandru, M. D’Arcangelo, Phuong Tran, Javed Mahmood, Vishwanath Gharpure, Apurva Bhingare, Patrick M. Forde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineNivolumabClinical endpointOncologyInterim analysisNeoadjuvant therapyPerioperativeSurgeryRandomized controlled trialCancerImmunotherapyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA8010 Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 816 study established neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo as a standard of care for eligible pts with resectable NSCLC. Here, we report the 4-year survival update from this study, representing the longest follow-up among all global phase 3 studies evaluating neoadjuvant or perioperative immunotherapy-based treatments. Methods: Adults with stage IB (≥ 4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC, ECOG PS ≤ 1, and no known EGFR/ ALK alterations were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 360 mg + chemo Q3W or chemo alone Q3W for 3 cycles, followed by surgery. Event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR; both per blinded independent review) were primary endpoints and were both statistically significant. Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by pCR status and extent of resection. Results: At the 23 Feb 2024 database lock (median follow-up, 57.6 mo), NIVO + chemo continued to improve EFS vs chemo (median, 43.8 mo vs 18.4 mo; HR [95% CI], 0.66 [0.49–0.90]); 4-year EFS rates were 49% vs 38%. EFS favored NIVO + chemo vs chemo regardless of whether pts had lobectomy or pneumonectomy (Table), with 56%–57% vs 40%–43% of pts without disease recurrence at 4 years. NIVO + chemo also continued to show OS improvement vs chemo (HR [98.36% CI], 0.71 [0.47–1.07]; P = 0.0451; median OS was not reached [NR] in both arms, and the significance boundary was not met at this interim analysis). An OS improvement of 13% was sustained over time for NIVO + chemo vs chemo; 4-year OS rates were 71% vs 58%. Pts in the NIVO + chemo arm who had pCR continued to have improved OS vs those who did not (HR [95% CI], 0.08 [0.02–0.34]); 4-year OS rates, 95% vs 63%); a similar trend was seen in the chemo arm, although few pts had pCR with chemo (n = 4). No new safety signals were observed at this update. Additional survival analyses in pt subgroups and by ctDNA levels will be presented. Conclusions: In this 4-year analysis from CheckMate 816, neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo sustained EFS and OS separation vs chemo over time and demonstrated the long-term survival benefit of having pCR in pts with resectable NSCLC. These data provide the first understanding of the long-term benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy when added to chemo, reinforcing neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo as a standard of care, and providing a benchmark to assess the benefits of all perioperative immunotherapy-based treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT02998528 . [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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations60
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207