MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall survival with neoadjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) + chemotherapy (chemo) in patients with resectable NSCLC in CheckMate 816.

2025· article· en· W4411026879 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick M. Forde, Jonathan Spicer, Mariano Provencio, Tetsuya Mitsudomi, Mark M. Awad, Changli Wang, Shun Lu, Enriqueta Felip, Stephen Broderick, Scott J. Swanson, Julie R. Brahmer, Keith M. Kerr, Tudor–Eliade Ciuleanu, Fumihiro Tanaka, Gene B. Saylors, Ke‐Neng Chen, Lily Wang, Quyen Duong, Nicolas Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNivolumabChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicineCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA8000 Background: NIVO + chemo is an established standard of care neoadjuvant treatment (tx) for eligible patients (pts) with resectable NSCLC and has shown statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in EFS and pCR in the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study. Here, we report the planned final analysis of OS from CheckMate 816 at 5-y follow-up (f/u). Methods: Adults with stage IB (≥ 4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC, ECOG PS ≤ 1, and no known EGFR / ALK alterations were randomized 1:1 to receive neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo Q3W or chemo alone Q3W for 3 cycles, followed by surgery. Primary endpoints were EFS and pCR (both by blinded independent review). OS was a key prespecified, statistically powered secondary endpoint that was tested hierarchically. Exploratory analyses included OS by ctDNA clearance and pCR status. Results: At a median f/u of 68 mo (range, 60–85; database lock, 23 Jan 2025), neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo demonstrated a statistically significant OS benefit vs chemo alone (median [95% CI], not reached [NR] vs 73.7 mo [47.3–NR]; HR [95% CI], 0.72 [0.523–0.998]; P = 0.0479); 5-y OS rates were 65% vs 55%. OS favored NIVO + chemo in the subgroups defined by tumor PD-L1 expression, baseline disease stage, and histology (Table). In an exploratory analysis in pts with ctDNA+ at baseline (NIVO + chemo, n = 43; chemo, n = 43), pts with presurgical ctDNA clearance (56% vs 35%) had continued OS improvement vs those without across both tx arms (HR [95% CI]: NIVO + chemo, 0.38 [0.15–1.00]; chemo, 0.39 [0.14–1.11]). Furthermore, pts who had pCR with NIVO + chemo had sustained OS improvement vs those without (HR [95% CI], 0.11 [0.04–0.36]; 5-y OS rates, 95% vs 56%). Neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo continued to improve EFS vs chemo (median [95% CI], 59.6 [31.6–NR] vs 21.1 mo [16.5–36.8]; HR [95% CI], 0.68 [0.51–0.91]); 5-y EFS rates were 49% vs 34%. No new safety signals were observed at this long-term f/u. Conclusions: CheckMate 816 is the only neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy phase 3 trial to demonstrate a statistically and clinically significant OS benefit at 5 y for a resectable solid tumor. Pts with pCR with neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo had a ~90% reduction in their risk of death by 5 y compared with those without pCR. The findings show long-term survival benefit from a short course of neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo and affirm a paradigm shift in the tx of resectable NSCLC without actionable genomic alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT02998528 . All pts PD-L1 < 1% PD-L1 ≥ 1% Stage IB/II Stage IIIA Squamous Non-squamous NIVO + chemo (N = 179) vs chemo (N = 179) NIVO + chemo (n = 78) vs chemo (n = 77) NIVO + chemo (n = 89) vs chemo (n = 89) NIVO + chemo (n = 65) vs chemo (n = 61) NIVO + chemo (n = 113) vs chemo (n = 116) NIVO + chemo (n = 87) vs chemo (n = 95) NIVO + chemo (n = 92) vs chemo (n = 84) Median OS, mo NR vs 73.7 NR vs 61.8 NR vs 73.7 NR vs 76.8 NR vs 73.7 NR vs 73.7 NR vs NR HR (95% CI) 0.72 (0.523–0.998) 0.89 (0.57–1.41) 0.51 (0.31–0.84) 0.77 (0.44–1.35) 0.70 (0.47–1.05) 0.71 (0.46–1.11) 0.72 (0.45–1.16)

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207