MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Feasibility study of microbial ecosystem therapeutics (MET-4) to evaluate effects of fecal microbiome in patients on immunotherapy (MET4-IO).

2019· article· en· W2947267775 on OpenAlexaff
Tira J. Tan, Marcus O. Butler, Aaron R. Hansen, David Hogg, Adrian G. Sacher, Philippe L. Bédard, Kendra Ross, Helen Chow, Aida Al-Kindy, Sarah Boross-Harmer, Wei Xu, Bryan Coburn, Lillian L. Siu, Anna Spreafico

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrobiomeMetagenomicsInternal medicinePembrolizumabFecesAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialOncologyImmunotherapyGastroenterologyImmunologyBioinformaticsCancerBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS2664 Background: Differences in microbiome diversity and composition in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-responders vs non-responders have been demonstrated. Transplantation of responder feces in mouse models recapitulated the ICI-responsive phenotype. MET-4 is an oral alternative to fecal transplant consisting a well-defined mixture of intestinal bacteria isolated from healthy donor stool sample. We hypothesize that co-administration of MET-4 with ICI is safe and results in alterations of the gut microbiota. Methods: Three cohorts (n = 65) of subjects with any advanced solid tumor type treated with monotherapy anti- PD1/PD-L1 antibody outside of a therapeutic clinical trial will be enrolled. Group A: safety cohort of 5 subjects already on ICI will receive MET-4 in addition to standard of care (SOC) ICI. If < 2 subjects report adverse events of CTCAE grade ≥3 within 4 weeks at least possibly related to MET-4, this dose will be declared safe and groups B/C may start enrolling. Group B (n = 40): subjects with advanced solid tumors starting on ICI, randomized 3:1 to MET-4 plus SOC vs. SOC. Group C (n = 20): subjects with advanced solid tumors already on ICI with first unconfirmed disease progression randomized 1:1 to MET-4 plus ICI continuation vs. continuing ICI. Serial stool samples will be collected for taxonomic composition, diversity, metagenomics content and MET-4 species abundance. We anticipate the following analyses: 16S rRNA sequencing, shotgun metagenomics sequencing, qPCR, Nanostring nucleic acid detection and metabolomics profiling. Serial blood sampling for flow cytometry/CyTOF. Immune microenvironment of tumor specimen will be examined using immunohistochemistry. Other major inclusion criteria: willingness to provide correlative samples, RECIST v1.1 measurable disease and ECOG 0-2. Subjects unable to swallow oral medications are excluded. For the primary objective of cumulative relative abundance and changes of ICI-responsiveness associated species between baseline and day 12 MET-4, assuming a change of 0.5 standard deviation (SD) of microbial alpha diversity, our study will have ≥84% power to identify a significant difference given a significance level at 0.05 in group B. Assuming a change of 0.9 SD of microbial alpha diversity, we will have ≥83% power to identify a significant difference in group C. Response rates and progression free survival will be assessed per RECIST v1.1 and compared with historical data. Clinical trial information: NCT03686202.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.385 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→