MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Leukocyte interleukin injection (LI) immunotherapy extends overall survival (OS) in treatment-naive low-risk (LR) locally advanced primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: The IT-MATTERS study.

2022· article· en· W4403089980 on OpenAlexaff
Eyal Talor, Dušan Marković, Philip T. Lavin, J. Cipriano, József Tı́már, А. А. Карпенко, Igor Bondarenko, Srboljub Stošić, Hrvoje Šobat, Jayamini Horadugoda, A. Zhukavets, Rajnish Nagarkar, Nazim Imamovic, Chih‐Yen Chien, Magdalena Bańkowska-Woźniak, Mihály Kisely, Raphael Feinmesser, James Young, Christopher L. Oliver, Sheng‐Po Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaImmunotherapyHead and neckOncologyInternal medicineBasal cellHead and neck cancerRadiation therapySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6032 Background: The 3-week pre-surgery peritumoral/perilymphatic administration of an investigational proinflammatory cytokine complex biologic (LI) with CIZ (single low dose cyclophosphamide IV-bolus, 300 mg/m 2 ), indomethacin (po 25mg tid) and Zinc as multivitamins (po 15-45mg Zinc) + Standard of Care (SOC) to oral and soft-palate SCCHN subjects, resulted in early response (CRs/PRs) prior to surgery [RECIST] (confirmed at surgery by pathology) significantly prolonged OS in the NCCN-defined LR intent to treat (ITT) population vs SOC alone. Encouraging phase 2 OS and early responders results motivated this pivotal study IT-MATTERS Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01265849. No safety issues were noted for LI in this pivotal study or previous studies. Methods: Subjects (923 ITT; of which 380 LR ITT) meeting protocol entry criteria (including AJCC Stage III/IVa OSCC, soft-palate SCCHN, treatment naive) were randomized 3:1:3 to treatment arms LI (+/- CIZ) + SOC or to Control (SOC alone). LI treated were administered 200IU peritumorally and the same dose peri-lymphatically daily for 3-weeks before surgery. All study subjects were to receive SOC (per NCCN Guidelines). LR for recurrence subjects were to receive RTx while high risk subjects were to receive CRTx post-surgery. Follow-up was comparable (56-57 months median per treatment group). Results: Pre-surgery responders (PSR; CR/PR) in ITT LI treated (+/- CIZ) groups were 8.5% (45/529; overall LI) and 16% (34/212; LR LI) vs no SOC PSRs. Early response lowered death rate to 22.2% (ITT LI treated) vs 54.1% for non-PSRs (two-sided Fisher Exact (2FE) p < 0.0001), for ITT LR LI PSRs with 17.6% vs 42.7% (2FE p = 0.0067), and for ITT LR LI responders (LI+CIZ+SOC) 12.5% vs 41% (2FE p = 0.0101). Proportional hazard (PH) ITT LR LI treated HR = 0.348 (95% CI: [0.152, 0.801]), ITT LR LI+CIZ+SOC HR = 0.246 (95% CI: [0.077, 0.787]). For all ITT LR (n = 380), LI+CIZ+SOC demonstrated significant OS advantage vs SOC (log rank p = 0.0478; Cox HR = 0.68 (95% CI: [0.48-0.95]), Wald p = 0.0236 [controlling for tumor stage, tumor location and geographic region]. The absolute OS advantage in ITT LR LI+CIZ+SOC vs SOC was 4.9%/9.5%/14.1%, at 36/48/60 months (M), representing 72.4% vs 67.5% (36 M); 67.3% vs 57.8% (48 M), and 62.7% vs 48.6% (60 M) with a 46.5 M median OS advantage (101.7 M [LI+CIZ+SOC] vs 55.2 M [SOC]). Percent treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable among all treated groups. No excess safety was reported for LI treatment over SOC alone. Conclusions: LI immunotherapy did not add excess safety issues or TEAEs. Early LI response decreases mortality and is OS prognostic. ITT LR LI+CIZ+SOC absolute OS advantage over SOC alone increased over time; the 0.68 HR corresponds to a 47% prolongation of median survival in a population without any new therapy options in decades. Clinical trial information: NCT01265849.

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)0.000
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→