MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013900427 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p1-19-03

Abstract P1-19-03: JAVELIN PARP Medley, a phase 1b/2 study of avelumab plus talazoparib: Results from advanced breast cancer cohorts

2020· article· en· W3013900427 sur OpenAlexaff
Timothy A. Yap, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, Melinda L. Telli, Smita Saraykar, J. Thaddeus Beck, Matthew D. Galsky, Jame Abraham, David R. Wise, Mustafa Khasraw, Gábor Rubovszky, Mikhail Dvorkin, Anil A. Joy, Mateusz Opyrchal, Daria Stypinski, Colombe Chappey, Ross Stewart, Rossano Cesari, Anita Scheuber, Aditya Bardia

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineCohortMetastatic breast cancerOncologyBreast cancerRegimenPARP inhibitorAvelumabCancerImmunotherapyPembrolizumabPoly ADP ribose polymerase

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Avelumab, a human IgG1 anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, has shown antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in several tumor types. Talazoparib, an orally available PARP inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2− locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) breast cancer (BC). Preclinical data suggest that PARP inhibitors may have synergistic activity when administered in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report results from patients with LA/MBC enrolled in the phase 1b/2, multicohort JAVELIN PARP Medley study (NCT03330405). Methods: In phase 1b (cohort 1), patients with advanced solid tumors who had received ≥1 prior standard of care chemotherapy (CT) regimen were treated with avelumab 800 mg IV every 2 weeks (Q2W) in combination with talazoparib 1.0 mg orally once daily (QD) (dose de-escalation to 0.75 or 0.5 mg permitted following toxicity). In 2 phase 2 cohorts, eligible patients had either LA/M triple-negative BC (TNBC, cohort 2A) or LA/M hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2−, DNA damage repair defect-positive BC (cohort 2B). Patients in cohort 2A had received 0 to 2 prior CT regimens (no progression on prior platinum-based CT) and patients in cohort 2B had received prior standard of care hormone therapy in either the adjuvant and/or LA/M setting followed by 0 to 2 prior CT regimens (no progression on prior platinum-based CT). The primary endpoint for phase 1b was first-cycle dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and for phase 2 was objective response (investigator assessed per RECIST v1.1). Adverse events (AEs) were characterized using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for AEs v4.03. Results: By the data cutoff on December 24, 2018, 34 patients had been treated in cohorts 1 and 2. Twelve patients with advanced solid tumors were treated in cohort 1 (including 2 patients with TNBC); 3 patients (25.0%) had a first-cycle DLT: grade 3 neutropenia, (n=1) and grade 3 thrombocytopenia, (n=2). Best overall response (BOR) was partial response (PR) in 1 patient, stable disease (SD) in 3, progressive disease (PD) in 6, and non-complete response/non-PD in 1 patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and non-measurable disease at baseline; 1 patient was not evaluable for response. Both patients with TNBC had a BOR of SD and remained on treatment for ≥9 months. Objective response rate in this pre-treated and heterogenous population was 8.3% (95% CI, 0.2, 38.5). Based on the phase 1b data, the recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 800 mg Q2W and talazoparib 1 mg QD. By data cutoff, 22 patients had been treated in cohorts 2A (n=19) and 2B (n=3); median age was 56 and 50 years, respectively. In cohort 2A, 12 patients were evaluable for disease assessment; BOR was PR in 1, SD in 6, and PD in 5. All 3 patients in cohort 2B were non-evaluable for response at data cutoff. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 11 patients (91.7%) in cohort 1, and 18 (94.7%) patients in cohort 2A. In cohort 2A, the most common TRAEs were anemia (57.9%), nausea (26.3%), fatigue (21.1%) and thrombocytopenia (21.1%); 9 patients (47.4%) had grade ≥3 TRAEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. Safety data from cohort 2B are not reported owing to low patient numbers. Observed pharmacokinetic (PK) data for avelumab 800 mg Q2W were similar to simulated data derived from a population PK model developed using 10 mg/kg dosing. Conclusions: Avelumab 800 mg Q2W administered in combination with talazoparib 1 mg QD in patients with advanced solid tumors, showed preliminary antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile, which was comparable to the safety profiles of the single agents. The study is ongoing; updated safety and efficacy data, and biomarker data will be presented. Citation Format: Timothy A Yap, Panagiotis Konstantinopoulos, Melinda L. Telli, Smita Saraykar, J Thaddeus Beck, Matthew D. Galsky, Jame Abraham, David R. Wise, Mustafa Khasraw, Gabor Rubovszky, Mikhail Dvorkin, Anil A Joy, Mateusz Opyrchal, Daria Stypinski, Colombe Chappey, Ross Stewart, Rossano Cesari, Anita Scheuber, Aditya Bardia. JAVELIN PARP Medley, a phase 1b/2 study of avelumab plus talazoparib: Results from advanced breast cancer cohorts [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-03.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,161
Tête enseignante GPT0,479
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer ResearchMême sujetPARP inhibition in cancer therapyTravaux en français237 207