MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408531419 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32030168

Evaluation of Clinical Parameters Associated with Response and Resistance to Cemiplimab in Locally Advanced and Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4408531419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Edward Haigh, Samuel Rack, Ruiyang Yan, Oliver Donnelly, Harriet S. Walter, Guy Faust, Shradha Bhagani, Patrick Isola, Robert Metcalf

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChristie Charity
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineSkin cancerOncologyRetrospective cohort studyClinical trialRadiation therapyImmunosuppressionIncidence (geometry)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a common cancer with increasing incidence and 5% of patients develop incurable disease, often resistant to chemotherapy. The anti-PD-1 therapy cemiplimab has shown high efficacy in clinical trials. This retrospective study evaluated the real-world effectiveness of cemiplimab in incurable cSCC and examined factors influencing response and toxicity. Data from 86 patients across three UK healthcare providers were analysed. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached, with 38% showing durable responses beyond 12 months. The overall response rate was 60.8% (95% CI 49–71), and the clinical benefit rate was 74.3% (95% CI 63–83). A head and neck primary site was associated with improved PFS (p = 0.008) and OS (p = 0.023), while concurrent immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (p < 0.001). These findings align with clinical trials, suggesting cemiplimab is effective and safe in the recurrent/metastatic setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207