Perioperative nivolumab (NIVO) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with resectable NSCLC: Updated survival and biomarker analyses from CheckMate 77T.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA8010 Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 77T study demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS with perioperative NIVO vs PBO in pts with resectable NSCLC. pCR rates were also improved. Here, we report updated EFS, OS from the first prespecified interim analysis, and exploratory biomarker analyses. Methods: Pts with resectable stage IIA–IIIB (N2; AJCC v8) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to neoadjuvant (neoadj) NIVO + chemotherapy (chemo) Q3W (up to 4 cycles [cyc]) followed by adjuvant (adj) NIVO Q4W (up to 13 cyc) or neoadj PBO + chemo Q3W (up to 4 cyc) followed by adj PBO Q4W (up to 13 cyc). The primary endpoint was EFS per BICR. Secondary endpoints included pCR, OS, and safety. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by pCR status, presurgery ctDNA clearance (CL), and tumor genomic alterations. Results: At a median follow-up of 41.0 mo (database lock, 16 Dec 2024), NIVO continued to provide EFS benefit vs PBO (HR [95% CI], 0.61 [0.46–0.80]; 30-mo EFS rates, 61% vs 43%) in all randomized pts and regardless of disease stage, tumor histology, or PD-L1 expression (Table). EFS from surgery (HR [95% CI]) continued to favor NIVO vs PBO in pts with pCR (0.90 [0.19–4.15]) or without (w/o; 0.72 [0.50–1.05]). In biomarker-evaluable pts (NIVO, 98; PBO, 92), pts with ctDNA CL had greater EFS benefit (assessed from randomization) vs pts w/o (HR [95% CI]: NIVO, 0.41 [0.20–0.86]; PBO, 0.62 [0.31–1.22]); pts with ctDNA CL with or w/o pCR had improved EFS vs pts w/o ctDNA CL and pCR (data to be presented). EFS (HR [95% CI]) favored NIVO vs PBO in pts with tumor genomic alterations ( KRAS , and/or STK11 , and/or KEAP1 mutations; 0.63 [0.32–1.23]) or w/o (0.65 [0.39–1.10]). Higher ctDNA CL and pCR rates were seen with NIVO vs PBO regardless of mutation status; additional efficacy and ctDNA outcomes will be presented. At the first prespecified interim OS analysis, NIVO showed a trend of OS improvement vs PBO in all randomized pts (HR [97.63% CI], 0.85 [0.58–1.25]; median OS, not reached in both tx arms; 30-mo OS rates, 78% vs 72%). Safety outcomes were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: In this update, perioperative NIVO continued to show long-term EFS benefit and a favorable OS trend vs PBO in pts with resectable NSCLC; no new safety signals were observed. In exploratory analyses, presurgery ctDNA CL was associated with EFS benefit. EFS favored NIVO vs PBO regardless of KRAS , STK11 , and KEAP1 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT04025879 . All pts Stage II Stage III Squamous Non-squamous PD-L1 < 1% PD-L1 ≥ 1% NIVO (N = 229) vs PBO(N = 232) NIVO (n = 80) vs PBO(n = 81) NIVO (n = 149) vs PBO(n = 149) NIVO (n = 116) vs PBO(n = 118) NIVO (n = 113) vs PBO(n = 114) NIVO (n = 93) vs PBO(n = 93) NIVO (n = 128) vs PBO(n = 128) Median EFS, mo 46.6 vs 16.9 NR vs NR 42.1 vs 13.4 NR vs 16.4 40.1 vs 16.9 40.1 vs 19.8 46.6 vs 15.1 HR (95% CI) 0.61(0.46–0.80) 0.77(0.46–1.30) 0.54(0.39–0.74) 0.53(0.35–0.80) 0.69 (0.48–1.00) 0.79(0.52–1.21) 0.53(0.36–0.76)
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".