MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410708315 · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2025.05.016

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab, Pemetrexed, and a Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC: Phase 3 LEAP-006 Study

2025· article· en· W4410708315 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roy S. Herbst, Byoung Chul Cho, Caicun Zhou, Mauricio Burotto, Manuel Cobo, Mehmet Alı Nahıt Şendur, Vladimir Moiseyenko, Ignacio Casarini, Makoto Nishio, Rina Hui, Elvire Pons‐Tostivint, Julia Dudnik, Samreen Ahmed, Chinyere E. Okpara, Corina E. Dutcus, Lina Yin, Yiwen Luo, Diana Chirovsky, Niyati Bhagwati, Delvys Rodríguez‐Abreu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisai IncorporatedMerck Sharp and DohmeEisai CanadaEisaiMerckEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicinePemetrexedPembrolizumabOncologyLenvatinibLung cancerInternal medicineAtezolizumabNivolumabCancerChemotherapyImmunotherapyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We present the LEAP-006 (NCT03829319) phase 3 study evaluating the addition of lenvatinib to first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without targetable genetic alterations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 8 mg/d or placebo once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks with pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab (≤35 total cycles) and pemetrexed until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Part 1 was an open-label safety run-in of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy; part 2 was the randomized, double-blind study. RESULTS: Participants (n = 748) were randomized to the lenvatinib (n = 375) or placebo (n = 373) arms. Median follow-up at final analysis (August 11, 2023) for OS was 36.8 months. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) progression-free survival was 12.1 (10.4-14.1) versus 9.5 (8.3-10.7) months in the lenvatinib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.05]; 1-sided p = 0.07976). Median (95% CI) OS was 21.8 (18.6-24.0) versus 22.1 (19.7-24.2) months (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.88-1.26]; 1-sided p = 0.70818). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69.7% and 55.6% of participants, respectively (grade 5, 5.6% versus 2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Adding lenvatinib to first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy did not improve efficacy versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without targetable genetic alterations. There were no new safety signals. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy remains a standard of care for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), NCT03829319.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.417 · 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207