MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898272327 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy285.144

Preliminary safety, efficacy, and PK/PD characterization from GARNET, a phase I clinical trial of the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody, TSR-042, in patients with recurrent or advanced MSI-H endometrial cancer

2018· article· en· W2898272327 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Oaknin, Susan Ellard, Charles A. Leath, Víctor Moreno, Rebecca Kristeleit, Wei Guo, Sharon Lu, David W. Jenkins, Kristen McEachern, Kai Yu Jen, Steven Dunlap, E. Im, Lucy Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectEndometrial cancerCohortResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsGastroenterologyProgressive diseaseOncologyBiomarkerPharmacokineticsPeripheral blood mononuclear cellClinical trialPhases of clinical researchCancerDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: TSR-042, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets programmed death (PD)–1 effectively blocking interaction with its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. TSR-042 is being evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors in the ongoing phase 1 GARNET trial (NCT02715284).1 We present safety and efficacy data from the microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) endometrial cancer (EC) cohort, pharmacokinetics (PK) and receptor occupancy (RO) at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), as well as biomarker analyses. Methods: Patients with previously treated MSI-H EC were evaluated. Patients received the RP2D of TSR-042: 500 mg Q3W for the first 4 cycles and 1000 mg Q6W thereafter. Antitumor activity was assessed by immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST). Serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected for PK and RO measurements, respectively.1 Results: Twenty-five patients with MSI-H EC were enrolled and treated; median age was 66 years old and 56% had received prior therapy for metastatic/recurrent disease (median=1.0 line of treatment). Seventeen patients had at least 1 tumor assessment (week 12) and also underwent biomarker profiling. Partial responses (confirmed and unconfirmed) occurred in 9 patients (53%), 1 (6%) had stable disease, and 6 (35%) had progressive disease; one patient was not evaluable. Duration of response data for this cohort is not mature yet. Of the 25 patients, 18 (72%) had ≥1 adverse event (AE) with grade ≥3 AEs reported in 11 patients (44%). Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 18 patients (72%) with grade ≥3 TEAEs in 1 patient (4%) who experienced grade ≥3 leukopenia and grade ≥3 neutropenia. TSR-042 PK was dose-proportional. Maximal RO was observed at RP2D consistent with results in Parts 1 and 2A.1 Conclusions: TSR-042 demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with previously treated recurrent or advanced MSI-H EC and an acceptable toxicity profile. PK was consistent across patients. Maximal RO was attained at RP2D. 1. Sachdev JC et al. Ann Oncol. 2017(suppl 5):28:420;1185P. Clinical trial identification: NCT02715284. Editorial acknowledgement: Editorial support, funded by Tesaro, Inc. (Waltham, MA, USA) and coordinated by Ted Paunescu, PhD of Tesaro, Inc., was provided by Dena McWain of Ashfield Healthcare Communications (Middletown, CT, USA). Legal entity responsible for the study: Tesaro, Inc. Funding: Tesaro, Inc. Disclosure: A. Oaknin: Advisory boards: Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Inc.; Support for travel or accommodation: Roche, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar. S.L. Ellard: Advisory boards: AstraZeneca, Astellas; Honoraria: AstraZeneca. C. Leath, III: Advisory boards: Mateon, Celsion. W. Guo, S. Lu, D. Jenkins, K. McEachern, K. Yu Jen, S. Dunlap, E. Im: Employment and stock and other ownership interests: Tesaro, Inc. L. Gilbert: Advisory boards: AstraZeneca, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207