KEYLYNK-009: Pembrolizumab plus Olaparib in Locally Recurrent Inoperable or Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer after Clinical Benefit from First-Line Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was evaluated as postinduction therapy for patients with PD-L1-unselected locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who derived clinical benefit from first-line pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy induction therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase 2 study (NCT04191135), participants with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic TNBC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks plus platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants with complete/partial response or stable disease (per RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks plus olaparib 300 mg twice a day or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were primary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 460 participants receiving induction treatment, 271 were randomly assigned to postinduction therapy. The median PFS was 5.5 months in the pembrolizumab plus olaparib group versus 5.6 months in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.33; P = 0.4556]. The median OS was 25.1 versus 23.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.64-1.40). In participants with tumor BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (tBRCAm), HRs for PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.48) and OS (0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.37) favored pembrolizumab plus olaparib. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 84.4% and 96.2% of participants receiving pembrolizumab plus olaparib and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint was not met, postinduction pembrolizumab plus olaparib therapy resulted in similar PFS and OS compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in this setting. The positive trend for PFS and OS in participants with tBRCAm suggests a potential nonchemotherapy strategy for maintaining clinical benefit attained with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy induction treatment. No new safety signals were identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".