MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A multi-centre, single arm, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab in treatment-naïve patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site.

2024· article· en· W4399738268 on OpenAlexaff
Jose Gerard Monzon, Hatim Karachiwala, John Walker, Rakesh Goel, Paul Wheatley‐Price, Timothy R. Asmis, Vishal Navani, Patricia A. Tang, Michael M. Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabOncologyInternal medicineSurgeryCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2659 Background: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) represents a heterogeneous group of cancers that present with metastatic epithelial disease with no identifiable primary lesion at the time of diagnosis. Patients with poor prognostic features have limited effective systemic therapy options. Researchers hypothesize that these primary lesions are occult, in part, due to anti-cancer immune surveillance. We hypothesize, pembrolizumab will have activity in this setting. Methods: This single arm phase 2 study evaluated the use of pembrolizumab in treatment naïve patients with poor prognosis CUP. Patients ≥18 years of age with ECOG PS 0-1 and histologically proven, measurable metastatic carcinoma with no primary site identified were eligible. Pembrolizumab was administered at 200 mg intravenously every 3-weeks for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was safety and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives included progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study used a Simon’s two stage design based on a one-sided test with a type 1 error rate of 0.1, null hypothesis for ORR ≤ 20% yielding a power of 0.8 with an alternate hypothesis of ≥40%. The null hypothesis will be rejected if 8 or more responses are observed in 25 patients. Mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing was not mandatory for patients. Results: There were 27 evaluable and 6 unevaluable (no response assessment, included in adverse event analysis) patients. The median age was 64 (range 21-80) and the majority were male (57.6%) and ECOG 1 (84.8%). Four patients experienced grade 3 treatment related adverse events (pain, anorexia, fatigue, confusion, and anemia). There were no treatment related deaths or new signals of toxicity. Of the evaluable patients, the ORR was 18.5% (4 partial responses and 1 complete response), disease control rate was 51.9% (9 stable disease) and thus the null hypothesis could not be rejected. For evaluable patients, the median PFS and OS were 2.56 (95% CI 2.10 – 7.46) and 9.79 (95% CI 3.84 – 16.03) months respectively. The one patient who developed a CR had MMR deficiency and has completed 2 years of therapy. Of the 4 patients with a partial response, one had an MMR proficient tumour, while the remaining 3 had unknown MMR status. Conclusions: Although not meeting the primary endpoint, pembrolizumab has some activity in CUP patients. Patients with CUP should be screened for MMR or MSI. Future studies should evaluate combination therapies with the addition of pembrolizumab. Clinical trial information: NCT03391973 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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