MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with sorafenib-treated (cohort 1) and treatment (tx)-naive (cohort 2) advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) after additional follow-up in the phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 study.

2024· article· en· W4399881235 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Finn, Masatoshi Kudo, Ivan Borbath, Julien Edeline, Stéphane Cattan, Hans Van Vlierberghe, Chris Verslype, Daniel H. Palmer, Per Stål, Sadahisa Ogasawara, Arndt Vogel, Mark Karwal, Stephen L. Chan, Jennifer J. Knox, Bruno Daniele, Amos Odeleye-Ajakaye, Ken Hatogai, Abby B. Siegel, Ann‐Lii Cheng, Jean‐Luc Van Laethem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaSorafenibPembrolizumabCohortInternal medicineOncologyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4100 Background: Based on the results of the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 study (NCT02702414), pembro received US FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation of the China National Medical Products Administration approval for pts with sorafenib-treated aHCC (cohort 1). Durable activity and manageable safety were also observed for pts with tx-naive aHCC in cohort 2 of KEYNOTE-224. We report updated efficacy and safety from both cohorts of KEYNOTE-224 after approximately 7 and 5 years of median follow-up, respectively. Methods: Adults with pathology-confirmed aHCC whose disease progressed after or who were intolerant to sorafenib tx (cohort 1) and adults with histologically, cytologically, or radiologically confirmed aHCC with no prior systemic tx (cohort 2) were eligible. Pts in both cohorts had BCLC stage C or B not amenable or refractory to locoregional therapy and not amenable to curative tx, Child-Pugh A liver function, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and ECOG PS 0 or 1. Pts received pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles (~2 y). Primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR. Secondary end points included DOR, DCR, TTP, and PFS (all per RECIST v1.1 by BICR), OS, and safety/tolerability. Results: A total of 155 pts enrolled in cohorts 1 (n = 104) and 2 (n = 51) received ≥1 dose of pembro. Median follow-up, defined as time from first dose to data cutoff (Sept 29, 2023), was 83.0 mo (range, 79.3-87.3) for cohort 1 and 58.8 mo (range, 55.3-60.8) for cohort 2. In each cohort, 90% of pts discontinued, mostly due to progressive disease (59%); 10% of pts in each cohort completed 2 y of tx. ORR was 18.3% (95% CI, 11.4-27.1) for cohort 1 (5 CRs [4.8%] and 14 PRs [13.5%]) and 17.6% (95% CI, 8.4-30.9) for cohort 2 (2 CRs [3.9%] and 7 PRs [13.7%]). Median DOR was 21.0 mo (range, 3.1 to 75.8+) for cohort 1 and 24.7 mo (range, 3.1 to 53.4+) for cohort 2; 77%/43% and 76%/64% of responders, respectively, had a response duration of ≥12 mo/≥24 mo per the Kaplan-Meier method for censored data. Data for PFS, TTP, and OS are shown in the Table. Tx-related AEs were reported in 76 pts (73.1%; grade 3-5, 27 [26.0%]) in cohort 1 and 28 pts (54.9%; grade 3-5, 8 [15.7%]) in cohort 2. Conclusions: Pembro continued to provide durable responses in pts with aHCC with or without prior systemic therapy, with some lasting beyond 20 mo; long-term effects on OS beyond 24 mo and manageable safety were also observed. Together with data from KEYNOTE-394 and KEYNOTE-240, these data support the efficacy and safety of pembro as a tx option for aHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02702414 . [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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→