Nivolumab combination therapies in patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: the phase II FRACTION gastric cancer study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nivolumab-based therapies are efficacious with acceptable safety in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). Novel nivolumab-based combination immunotherapies may offer enhanced efficacy in these indications. FRACTION-GC was a signal-seeking, randomized, open-label, phase II adaptive-design trial assessing efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab [cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) antibody], relatlimab (lymphocyte-activation gene 3 antibody), or IDO1i (BMS986205, an indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase-1 inhibitor) in patients with unresectable, advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously treated patients with GC/GEJC were randomized to receive nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, or nivolumab + IDO1i across two tracks: anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1/anti-CTLA-4-naïve (track 1) and -experienced (track 2). Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by investigator per RECIST v1.1, duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients in track 1 and 81 in track 2 received one combination therapy. With a median follow-up of 50.2 months, ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] by investigator for nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and nivolumab + IDO1i in track 1 was 4% (0.1% to 21.9%), 5% (0.1% to 24.9%), and 13% (4.4% to 28.1%), and for track 2 was 9% (1.1% to 28.0%), 6% (0.7% to 18.7%), and 0% (0% to 15.4%), respectively. PFS rate at 24 weeks (95% CI) was 24% (11% to 39%) for nivolumab + IDO1i track 1, 17% (16% to 32%) for nivolumab + relatlimab track 2, and not estimable for other treatment arms. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22%, 5%, and 18% of patients receiving nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and nivolumab + IDO1i in track 1 and in 35%, 11%, and 18% of patients in track 2, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: While ORR did not meet prespecified expansion criteria in any treatment arm, the safety profile of the combinations was manageable. FRACTION-GC represents a novel adaptive protocol for testing multiple combination immunotherapies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".