MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pembrolizumab (pembro) for locally advanced (LA) or recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC): Long-term results of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-629 study.

2024· article· en· W4400272135 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Muñoz‐Couselo, Brett Hughes, Laurent Mortier, Jean‐Jacques Grob, Ralf Gutzmer, Osama Roshdy, R. Mendoza, Jacob Schachter, Ana Arance, Florent Grange, Nicolás Meyer, Abhishek Joshi, Salem Billan, Sven E. Ojavee, Jianda Yuan, Burak Gümüşçü, Åse Bratland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabBasal cellDermatologyOncologyInternal medicineCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9554 Background: Pembro monotherapy is approved in certain countries, including the US, for treatment of LA or R/M cSCC based on results from the open-label phase 2 KEYNOTE-629 trial (NCT03284424). Promising antitumor activity was demonstrated with pembro in both the LA and R/M cohorts. ORR (95% CI) was 50.0% (36.1-63.9; 16.7% CRs) in the LA cohort and 35.2% (26.2-45.2; 10.5% CRs) in the R/M cohort. We present data from KEYNOTE-629 with an additional follow-up of 38 mo for LA and R/M cohorts. Methods: Adults with histologically confirmed LA or R/M cSCC, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR), and ECOG PS 0 or 1 received pembro 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (~2 years). The primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR. Secondary end points were DOR, DCR (CR + PR + SD ≥12 wks), and PFS per RECIST v1.1 by BICR; OS; and safety. End points were analyzed in pts who received ≥1 dose of pembro. Results: A total of 159 pts were treated with pembro (LA, n = 54; R/M, n = 105). As of September 13, 2023, 33 pts (20.8%) completed treatment and 126 pts (79.2%) discontinued treatment. Median (range) follow-up was 52.4 mo (47.6-56.9) for the LA cohort, 64.7 mo (62.1-69.5) for the R/M cohort, and 63.1 mo (47.6-69.5) in the total population. ORR and DCR are shown in the table. Median DOR (range) was 47.2 mo (1.0+ to 49.9+) in the LA cohort, not reached (NR; 2.7 to 64.2+ mo) in the R/M cohort, and 52.5 mo (1.0+ to 64.2+) in the total population; the proportion of responders with responses ≥12 mo by Kaplan-Meier estimate were 84.8%, 77.8%, and 80.7%, respectively. Median (95% CI) PFS was 14.4 mo (5.5-43.6) in the LA cohort, 5.7 mo (3.1-8.5) in the R/M cohort, and 8.0 mo (5.3-14.4) in the total population; 12-mo rates were 56.7%, 37.3%, and 43.7%, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was NR (33.3-NR) in the LA cohort, 23.8 mo (13.4-30.9) in the R/M cohort, and 29.8 mo (20.0-42.8) in the total population; 36-mo rates were 62.0%, 39.5%, and 47.0%, respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs occurred in 11.3% of pts, and grade 3-5 immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 8.8% of pts. Two pts (1.3%) died due to a treatment-related AE (colitis, cranial nerve disorder). Conclusions: With a median follow-up of more than 5 years, pembro continued to show durable responses in pts with LA or R/M cSCC. No new safety signals were observed. Results from this study continue to support the use of pembro in this pt population. Clinical trial information: NCT03284424 . [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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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