Overall Survival with Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial. Data are needed on overall survival. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for three cycles, followed by surgery. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response. Here, we report the results of the planned analysis of overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients were concurrently assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy (179 patients) or chemotherapy alone (179 patients). The final analysis of overall survival significantly favored neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.523 to 0.998; P = 0.048). At a median follow-up of 68.4 months, the 5-year overall survival was 65.4% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 55.0% with chemotherapy alone, with consistency across most subgroups. In exploratory analyses, the 5-year overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group was 95.3% (95% CI, 82.7 to 98.8) among the patients with a pathological complete response and 55.7% (95% CI, 46.9 to 63.7) among those without such a response; survival was 75.0% among the patients with presurgery clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and 52.6% among those without such clearance. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival among patients with resectable NSCLC as compared with chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".