MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized phase 2 trial of MM-121, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting ErbB3, in combination with erlotinib in EGFR wild-type NSCLC patients.

2014· article· en· W2601086841 on OpenAlexaff
Lecia V. Sequist, Ariel López-Chávez, Robert C. Doebele, Jhanelle E. Gray, Wael A. Harb, Manuel Modiano, David M. Jackman, Maria Q. Baggstrom, Akin Atmaca, Enriqueta Felip, Mariano Provencio, Manuel Cobo, Christopher J. Kripas, Gavin MacBeath, Akos Czibere, Byoung Chul Cho, Keunchil Park, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErlotinibMedicineInternal medicineOncologyERBB3Progression-free survivalLog-rank testEpidermal growth factor receptorCancerChemotherapySurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8051 Background: Heregulin induced activation of ErbB3 has been implicated as a mechanism of resistance to many targeted therapies such as EGFR-TKIs in preclinical models. MM-121 is a monoclonal antibody designed to interfere with this mechanism of resistance. Methods: This Phase 2 trial was a global, multi-center, open-label, parallel cohort study of MM-121 and erlotinib in 3 predefined NSCLC patient groups. Here we report final results from one of the 3 groups: EGFR WT patients. This group comprised 132 patients with WT EGFR who progressed on ≥1 platinum-based SOC therapy and were EGFR TKI-naive. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive MM-121 20 mg/kg every other week plus daily erlotinib at 100 mg (M) or daily erlotinib alone at 150 mg (E). The primary objective was to compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between M and E. Fresh tissue biopsies were mandatory for evaluation of a pre-specified set of biomarkers mechanistically-linked to ErbB3 signaling. Results: 121 patients (85 (M), 36 (E)) were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. PFS was analyzed after 105 events (73 (M), 32 (E)). Median PFS was 8.1 weeks for arm M and 7.7 weeks for arm E with a HR of 0.898 (95%CI [0.592, 1.363]), log-rank p=0.6129. The objective response rate was 4.7% (95%CI [1.85 - 11.48]) on arm M, and 5.6% (95%CI [1.54 - 18.14]) on arm E. The median overall survival estimate was 27.3 weeks for arm M and 37.3 weeks for arm E, with a HR of 1.499 (95% CI [0.855, 2.629]). The majority of adverse events were reported as mild to moderate in severity and included the following (M vs. E): rash (74% vs. 37%), diarrhea (59% vs. 27%), dermatitis acneiform (28% vs. 11%), dry skin (54% vs. 47%), nausea (29% vs. 14%), fatigue (31% vs. 13%), stomatitis (20% vs. 5%), decreased appetite (37% vs. 16%), weight decreased (27% vs. 11%), and dyspnea (22% vs. 9%). The adverse events were overall manageable and did not impact compliance on treatment. Conclusions: Addition of (M) to (E) was not effective at prolonging PFS in this study population. Overall survival favored the control arm. The observed safety profile is consistent with the expected adverse events associated with ErbB-family inhibitors. Biomarker data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT00994123.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207