MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase III randomized trial evaluating tilsotolimod in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced refractory melanoma (ILLUMINATE 301).

2024· article· en· W4399452838 on OpenAlexaff
Adi Diab, Paolo A. Ascierto, Reham Abdel‐Wahab, Michele Maio, Sylvie Négrier, Laurent Mortier, Stéphane Dalle, Ivana Krajsová, Luis de la Cruz‐Merino, M.‐T. Leccia, Michele Guida, Célèste Lebbé, Jean‐Jacques Grob, Marcus O. Butler, Gino K. In, Srinivas K. Chunduru, Shah Rahimian, Caroline Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIpilimumabMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineHazard ratioAdverse effectMelanomaRefractory (planetary science)OncologyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryImmunotherapyGastroenterologyConfidence intervalCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA9516 Background: There are limited treatment options for advanced melanoma that has progressed during or after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Intratumoral (IT) immunotherapy may improve tumor-specific immune activation by promoting local tumor antigen presentation while avoiding systemic toxicities. The Phase 3 ILLUMINATE-301 study (NCT03445533) evaluated tilsotolimod, a toll-like receptor 9 agonist, with or without ipilimumab in patients with anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)-advanced refractory melanoma. Methods: Patients with unresectable Stage III–IV melanoma that progressed during or after anti-PD-1 therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive 24 weeks of tilsotolimod plus ipilimumab or 10 weeks of ipilimumab alone. Nine IT injections of tilsotolimod were administered to a single designated lesion over 24 weeks. Intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was administered every 3 weeks from Week 2 in the tilsotolimod arm and Week 1 in the ipilimumab arm. The primary endpoint was efficacy measured using objective response rate (ORR; independent review) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of481 patients received tilsotolimod plus ipilimumab (n = 238) or ipilimumab alone (n = 243). ORRs were 8.8% in the tilsotolimod arm and 8.6% in the ipilimumab arm, with disease control rates of 34.5% and 27.2%, respectively. Median OS was 11.6 months in the tilsotolimod arm and 10.0 months in the ipilimumab arm (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–1.19]; P = 0.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 61.1% and 55.5% of patients in the tilsotolimod and ipilimumab arms, respectively. Conclusion: Adding tilsotolimod to ipilimumab did not improve response or OS in patients with PD-1 refractory advanced melanoma. However, the results represent the largest prospective dataset reported to date on using ipilimumab in this setting and are a valuable addition to the knowledge base. Clinical trial information: NCT03445533 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→