MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs gemcitabine-carboplatin (gem-carbo) chemotherapy for previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): Final results for cisplatin-ineligible patients from the CheckMate 901 trial.

2025· article· en· W4410821448 on OpenAlexaff
Michiel Simon Van Der Heijden, Matthew D. Galsky, Thomas Powles, Andrea Necchi, Dingwei Ye, Pengfei Zhang, Aristotelis Bamias, Pablo Maroto-Rey, Michel Pavic, Jens Bedke, Ja Hyeon Ku, Mauricio Burotto, Gwénaëlle Gravis, Jan Oldenburg, Yoshihiko Tomita, Yüksel Ürün, Jeiry Filian, Emmanouil G. Spanakis, Guru Sonpavde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineNivolumabIpilimumabCarboplatinMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaCisplatinChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologyUrologyUrothelial carcinomaBladder cancerCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4500 Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is a standard of care (SOC) for unresectable or mUC; patients (pts) ineligible for cisplatin (cis) have worse outcomes. The phase 3, global, open-label, randomized CheckMate 901 trial (NCT03036098) compared NIVO+IPI vs gem-carbo in cis-ineligible pts with previously untreated unresectable or mUC. Here, we report final results. Methods: Pts with previously untreated, histologically confirmed, unresectable or mUC who were cis-ineligible (glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min) were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W up to 4 cycles, then NIVO 480 mg Q4W until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity or up to 2 years, or to gem-carbo Q3W for up to 6 cycles. Pts were stratified by tumor PD-L1 expression and liver metastasis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) was a secondary endpoint. Objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, duration of response (DOR) per BICR, and safety were exploratory. Results: 445 pts were randomized (NIVO+IPI, n = 221; gem-carbo, n = 224). Median time to treatment discontinuation (95% CI) was 2.2 (2.1–3.5) mo with NIVO+IPI vs 3.8 (3.5–3.9) mo with gem-carbo. After minimum follow-up (58.3 mo), the primary endpoint of OS did not meet the threshold for significance (median, 19.1 mo with NIVO+IPI vs 13.2 mo with gem-carbo; HR 0.79 [98.27% CI, 0.61–1.01]; P = 0.0245; Table). PFS, ORR, and DOR are shown in the Table. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 89.0% (grade 3–4, 47.2%) of NIVO+IPI-treated and 92.9% (grade 3–4, 76.3%) of gem-carbo-treated pts; any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 31.2% and 14.2% of pts, respectively. There were 8 deaths related to toxicity (NIVO+IPI, 7; gem-carbo, 1). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI did not meet the threshold of statistical significance for improved OS vs gem-carbo in cis-ineligible pts with untreated unresectable or mUC. Durable response and favorable landmark OS with NIVO+IPI show meaningful activity from a chemotherapy-free regimen of finite duration. No new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT03036098 . Efficacy (95% CI) NIVO+IPI;n = 221 Gem-carbo;n = 224 HR mOS 19.1 (13.5–22.6) 13.2 (11.6–15.2) 0.79 (98.27% CI, 0.61–1.01) a ; P = 0.0245 b 12-mo OS rate 59.7 (52.8–65.9) 54.3 (47.4–60.7) – 36-mo OS rate 29.6 (23.5–35.9) 19.3 (14.3–24.9) – mPFS 5.3 (3.8–6.0) 5.9 (5.6–7.6) 0.90 (95% CI, 0.72–1.12) 12-mo PFS rate 31.5 (25.0–38.2) 17.2 (11.8–23.4) – 36-mo PFS rate 20.0 (14.3–26.5) 4.9 (2.1–9.6) – ORR 35.3 (29.0–42.0) 38.8 (32.4–45.6) - mDOR 25.0 (14.8–61.8); n = 78 7.4 (5.8–8.5); n = 87 - a Statistical inference based on adjusted CI: 95% CI, 0.64–0.97. b mOS did not reach the prespecified threshold of statistical significance of P = 0.0173. m, median.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→