MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical outcomes with perioperative nivolumab (NIVO) by nodal status among patients (pts) with stage III resectable NSCLC: Results from the phase 3 CheckMate 77T study.

2024· article· en· W4399452407 on OpenAlexaff
Mariano Provencio, Mark M. Awad, Jonathan Spicer, Annelies Janssens, Fedor Moiseenko, Yang Gao, Yasutaka Watanabe, Aurelia Alexandru, Florian Guisier, Nikolaj Frost, Fábio Franke, T.Jeroen Jeroen Nicolaas Hiltermann, Jie He, Fumihiro Tanaka, Shun Lu, Cinthya Coronado Erdmann, Padma Sathyanarayana, Phuong Tran, Vipul Devas, Tina Cascone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePerioperativeNivolumabAdjuvantOncologyStock optionsCancerSurgeryImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA8007 Background: In CheckMate 77T, perioperative NIVO showed statistically significant EFS improvement vs neoadjuvant (neoadj) chemo followed by adjuvant (adj) placebo (PBO) in pts with stage (stg) II or III resectable NSCLC. We report clinical outcomes by baseline (BL) stg III N2 status, a subgroup with poor historical 5 y survival (26%–36%; Goldstraw J Thorac Oncol 2016). Methods: Adults with resectable stg IIA–IIIB (N2; AJCC v8) NSCLC were randomized to neoadj NIVO 360 mg Q3W + chemo (4 cycles [cyc]) followed by adj NIVO 480 mg Q4W (13 cyc) or neoadj PBO Q3W + chemo (4 cyc) followed by adj PBO Q4W (13 cyc). Primary endpoint: EFS per BICR. Exploratory analysis: efficacy and safety in pts with BL clinical stg III N2 or non N2 disease (dz). Results: BL characteristics were generally similar between pts with stg III N2 (NIVO, 91; PBO, 90) and non N2 dz (55; 57), and between treatment (tx) arms, except a higher percent of pts with N2 dz had NSQ histology and ECOG PS 0 (both arms). Pts with N2 dz had improved EFS with NIVO vs PBO (HR 0.46; 1 y EFS 70% vs 45%) and higher pCR (22.0% vs 5.6%; median f/u 25.4 mo; Table). Pts with non N2 also had EFS benefit with NIVO vs PBO (HR 0.60; 1 y EFS 74% vs 62%) and higher pCR (25.5% vs 5.3%; Table). Surgical feasibility was similar between pts with N2 and non N2 dz and numerically higher with NIVO vs PBO. Of pts with N2 dz, 77% (NIVO) vs 73% (PBO) had definitive surgery (pneumonectomy 1% vs 14%; R0 resection 86% vs 86%); of pts with non N2 dz, 82% vs 79% had definitive surgery (pneumonectomy 13% vs 9%; R0 resection 84% vs 87%). Tumor downstaging postsurgery was seen in most pts with stg III dz and was deeper with NIVO vs PBO: 61% vs 50% (N2; 33% vs 14% to ypT0), 87% vs 76% (non N2; 27% vs 11% to ypT0). Of all pts with stg III dz, nodal downstaging postsurgery was 52% (NIVO) vs 45% (PBO); 46% vs 36% to ypN0. Grade 3–4 TRAEs occurred in 34% (NIVO) and 26% (PBO) of pts with N2; 29% and 21% of pts with non N2 dz. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, perioperative NIVO showed clinical benefit vs PBO in pts with stg III NSCLC, regardless of N2 status. Over half of pts with stg III dz had nodal downstaging with NIVO; majority downstaged to ypN0. This first comprehensive analysis by nodal status among pts with stg III dz from a global phase 3 study of perioperative immunotherapy further supports perioperative NIVO as a tx option for pts with resectable NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT04025879 . [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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207