LEAP-008: Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab for Metastatic NSCLC That Has Progressed After an Anti–Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 or Anti–Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Plus Platinum Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: LEAP-008 (NCT03976375) was an open-label, randomized, phase 3 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for metastatic NSCLC that progressed on anti‒programmed cell death protein 1 or anti‒programmed cell death ligand 1 therapy and platinum-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: every 3 weeks, or once-daily lenvatinib 24 mg. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by central review. The superiority of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel was assessed at interim analysis 2 for PFS and final analysis for OS. RESULTS: Participants (N = 422) were randomized to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 185), docetaxel (n = 189), or lenvatinib monotherapy (n = 48). The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS was 5.6 (4.2‒6.5) months with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 4.2 (3.2‒5.2) months with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI: 0.70‒1.12]; p = 0.164). The median (95% CI) OS was 11.3 (9.4‒13.2) versus 12.0 (9.6‒13.7) months (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI: 0.78‒1.23]; p = 0.434). Rates of treatment-related adverse events were 91.7%, 91.0%, and 89.4% with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, docetaxel, and lenvatinib, respectively; the rates of grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events were 59.7%, 48.6%, and 57.4%. Health-related quality of life scores were similar between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not improve efficacy versus docetaxel in participants with stage IV NSCLC that progressed on anti‒programmed cell death protein 1 or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 therapy and platinum-containing chemotherapy. There were no unexpected safety signals. More effective therapies are needed for this patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".