A phase Ib study of safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (A) and cobimetinib (C) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
560 Background: The majority of pts with mCRC have microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors with minimal response to PD-L1/PD-1 blockade. MEK inhibition upregulates tumor major histocompatibility complex-I expression, promotes intratumoral T-cell accumulation and improves anti–PD-L1 responses (Ebert, Immunity. 2016), supporting clinical evaluation of combined anti–PD-L1 (A) plus MEKi (C) in pts with mCRC. Methods: Pts with chemotherapy-refractory or locally advanced mCRC were evaluated. A was administered IV q2w at 800 mg. C was dosed PO daily at 20 to 60 mg during dose escalation and 60 mg during dose expansion (14/14 or 21/7 d on/off schedule). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Investigator-assessed ORR and PFS by RECIST v1.1 and OS were secondary endpoints. Microsatellite instability (MSI) status was locally reported and centrally confirmed by NGS-based scoring. Results: As of May 10, 2017, 84 pts (57 KRASmt, 25 KRASwt, 2 unknown) were enrolled and evaluable. 66 pts had received 5+ prior therapies; 38 had known MSI status at baseline (MSS [n = 29], MSI-low [n = 8], MSI-H [n = 1]). A + C combination was tolerable. Treatment-related Gr 1-2 and Gr 3-4 AEs occurred at 60% and 37%, respectively. The most frequent related Gr 3-4 AEs were increased blood CPK, rash, diarrhea and fatigue (5% each). No treatment-related Gr 5 AEs occurred. 13% and 24% of pts experienced AEs leading to A and C withdrawal, respectively. Median follow-up was 14.3 mo (range, 0.5-29.8). Confirmed PR was observed in 7 pts (8%; locally reported MSS [n = 3], MSI-low [n = 1], MSI unknown [n = 3]). Median DOR was 14.8 mo (95% CI: 6.0, NE); DCR (PR + SD) was 31%. Median PFS was 1.9 mo (95% CI: 1.8, 2.3); median OS was 10.0 mo (95% CI: 6.2, 14.1). The 6-mo and 1-y OS rates were 65% (95% CI: 54, 76) and 46% (95% CI: 34, 58), respectively. Molecular determinants and immune biomarkers of response will be presented. Conclusions: A + C demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and improvements in OS vs those reported with SOC in heavily pretreated pts with mCRC. Objective responses observed in pts with MSS/MSI-low mCRC were durable, suggesting benefit of this novel combination in a pt population refractory to immune therapies. Clinical trial information: NCT01988896.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".