MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403312202 · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.10.002

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer: final analysis according to bevacizumab use in the randomized KEYNOTE-826 study

2024· article· en· W4403312202 on OpenAlexaff
D. Lorusso, Nicoletta Colombo, Coraline Dubot, M.V. Cáceres, Kazuki Hasegawa, Ronnie Shapira‐Frommer, Pamela Salman, Eduardo Yáñez, Mahmut Gümüş, Mivael Olivera, Vanessa Samouëlian, Vincent Castonguay, A. Arkhipov, Ka Wan Li, S. Toker, Krishnansu S. Tewari, B.J. Monk

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabPembrolizumabInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapyHazard ratioResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsSurgeryCancerProgressive diseaseImmunotherapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-826 (NCT03635567), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (±bevacizumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. This exploratory analysis examined outcomes in patient subgroups defined by bevacizumab use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible adult patients had persistent, recurrent, or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix not previously treated with chemotherapy and not amenable to curative treatment; measurable disease per RECIST v1.1; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (±bevacizumab 15 mg/kg). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment. Outcomes were assessed in subgroups defined by bevacizumab use. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were based on a stratified Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 617 patients were randomly assigned [pembrolizumab arm, n = 308 (63.6% with bevacizumab); placebo arm, n = 309 (62.5% with bevacizumab)]. The most common reason for bevacizumab exclusion was medical contraindication (75.9%). Among patients who received bevacizumab, HRs (95% CIs) for PFS favored the pembrolizumab arm in the programmed cell death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1 [0.56 (0.43-0.73)] and all-comer [0.57 (0.45-0.73)] populations; OS results were 0.60 (0.45-0.79) and 0.61 (0.47-0.80), respectively. Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, HRs (95% CIs) for PFS also favored the pembrolizumab arm in the programmed cell death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1 [0.61 (0.44-0.85)] and all-comer [0.69 (0.50-0.94)] populations; OS results were 0.61 (0.44-0.85) and 0.67 (0.49-0.91), respectively. Among patients who received bevacizumab, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 74.0% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 66.8% in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy prolonged PFS and OS and had manageable safety compared with placebo plus chemotherapy in patient subgroups defined by bevacizumab use.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations49
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207