Durvalumab plus chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer: 3-year overall survival update from the phase III TOPAZ-1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: At the TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235) primary analysis, durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) significantly improved overall survival (OS) in advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). We report updated exploratory analyses of OS and safety, extended long-term survivors (eLTS), and subsequent anticancer therapy use. METHODS: Participants with aBTC received durvalumab+GemCis or placebo+GemCis every 3 weeks (≤8 cycles), then durvalumab or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until progressive disease or other discontinuation criteria were met. OS and serious adverse events were assessed in the full analysis and safety analysis sets, respectively. eLTS outcomes were assessed (full analysis set participants alive ≥30 months after randomisation). RESULTS: A total of 685 participants were randomised: durvalumab+GemCis (n = 341); placebo+GemCis (n = 344). After a median 41.3 (95% CI 39.3-44.1) months' follow-up in all participants, median OS (95% CI) for durvalumab+GemCis vs. placebo+GemCis was 12.9 (11.6-14.1) vs. 11.3 (10.1-12.5) months (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI 0.63-0.87]); 36-month OS rate was 14.6% vs. 6.9%, respectively. In participants who achieved disease control (566/685; 82.6%), the 36-month OS rate was higher for durvalumab+GemCis (17.0%) vs. placebo+GemCis (7.6%). Overall, 12.8% were eLTS, with more eLTS in the durvalumab+GemCis (17.0%) vs. placebo+GemCis (8.7%) arms; eLTS included all clinically relevant subgroups. Durvalumab+GemCis improved OS regardless of subsequent anticancer therapy use. In eLTS, serious adverse events were comparable between arms and less frequent than in the full safety analysis set. CONCLUSIONS: Survival benefit and manageable safety continued with durvalumab+GemCis vs. placebo+GemCis approximately 3 years after the last participant was randomised. All clinically relevant subgroups were represented in eLTS, supporting standard-of-care status for durvalumab+GemCis in aBTC. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) was approved for use in advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) after the primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, phase III TOPAZ-1 study demonstrated that it significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs. placebo plus GemCis. This update, with analyses of OS and safety, extended long-term survivors, and subsequent anticancer therapy use, took place at a median follow-up of 41.3 months, which, to our knowledge, represents the longest follow-up to date in participants with aBTC. Survival benefit and manageable safety continued with durvalumab plus GemCis, all clinically relevant subgroups were represented in extended long-term survivors, and OS benefit with durvalumab plus GemCis was consistent regardless of subsequent anticancer therapy use. These long-term follow-up results support the standard-of-care status for durvalumab plus GemCis in aBTC, and enable physicians, patients and caregivers to make informed treatment decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03875235; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03875235.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".