MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety results from a phase I/IIa study of dabrafenib in pediatric patients with <i>BRAF</i> V600–mutant relapsed refractory low-grade glioma.

2018· article· en· W2891251835 on OpenAlexaff
Mark W. Kieran, Éric Bouffet, Alberto Broniscer, Kenneth J. Cohen, Birgit Geoerger, Jordan R. Hansford, Pooja Hingorani, Isabelle Aerts, Nicolás André, Anne-Isabelle Bertozzi-Salamon, Ira J. Dunkel, Trent R. Hummel, Sarah Leary, Lucas Moreno, Mark W. Russo, Lillian Tseng, Kohinoor Dasgupta, Noelia Nebot, James A. Whitlock, Darren Hargrave

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDabrafenibTrametinibInternal medicineAdverse effectRefractory (planetary science)Pilocytic astrocytomaGliomaDiscontinuationOncologyGastroenterologyAstrocytomaCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10506 Background: The primary treatment for many pediatric patients (pts) with low-grade glioma (LGG) remains surgical resection with curative intent. However, pts whose tumors cannot be completely resected or recur may require additional treatment, eg, radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Pediatric pts with BRAF V600–mutant LGG may benefit from treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. We report 2-y follow-up data from a 2-part phase I/IIa study investigating dabrafenib in pediatric BRAF V600–mutant LGG (NCT01677741). Methods: Part 1 determined the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); the Part 2 disease expansion evaluated efficacy and safety of dabrafenib in 4 pediatric tumor–specific cohorts, including LGG. Efficacy for LGG was determined by investigator and independent (IND) review per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology [RANO] criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed per NCI-CTCAE version 4.0 criteria. Results: Thirty-two pediatric pts with relapsed, refractory, or progressive BRAF V600–mutant LGG were enrolled (Dec 2013 to Jul 2015). Fifteen pts were treated in Part 1 (n = 7 at RP2D) and 17 in Part 2. RP2D is 4.5 mg/kg/d for pts ≥ 12 y of age and 5.25 mg/kg/d for pts < 12 y of age, each divided into 2 equal doses per day. Common histologies included pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 13; 41%), ganglioglioma (n = 7; 22%), and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (n = 3; 9%). At interim analysis (Sep 2017), median duration of exposure was 25 mo (range, 0.1-42.6 mo), with 15 ongoing. Most frequent reason for discontinuation was elective, following ≥ 1 yr of treatment. Across all dose levels, the confirmed overall response rate (ORR, complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) per IND review was 44% (95% CI, 26.4%-62.3%), including 1 CR and 13 PR. Eleven pts had stable disease, and 2 had progressive disease as best response. Median PFS by IND review was 35 mo (95% CI, 12.9 mo-NE). Common AEs of all grades, regardless of causality, included pyrexia (72%), vomiting (53%), and headache (47%). Conclusions: Dabrafenib demonstrated clinical activity with tolerability in pediatric pts with relapsed, refractory, or progressive BRAF V600E mutation–positive LGG and supports its further clinical evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT01677741.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→