MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of entrectinib in patients (pts) with <i>NTRK</i>-fusion positive (<i>NTRK</i>-fp) solid tumors: An updated integrated analysis.

2020· article· en· W3030545184 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Rolfo, Filippo de Braud, Robert C. Doebele, Alexander Drilon, Salvatore Siena, Manish R. Patel, Byoung Chul Cho, Stephen V. Liu, Myung‐Ju Ahn, Chao‐Hua Chiu, Anna F. Farago, Kōichi Goto, Jeeyun Lee, Lyudmila Bazhenova, Marwan Fakih, Brian Simmons, Bethany Pitcher, Xinhui Huang, George D. Demetri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyClinical trialTrk receptorPopulationClinical endpointPhases of clinical researchProgression-free survivalOverall survivalReceptorNeurotrophin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3605 Background: NTRK gene fusions lead to transcription of chimeric TRK proteins with overexpressed kinase function. Entrectinib is a potent inhibitor of TRKA/B/C. In phase 1/2 studies (ALKA, STARTRK-1, STARTRK-2; EudraCT 2012-000148-88; NCT02097810; NCT02568267), entrectinib was effective in pts with NTRK-fp solid tumors. We present updated data in a larger population with longer follow-up. Methods: In this integrated analysis of adult pts from 3 phase 1/2 trials (data cut-off 31 Oct 2018), tumors were assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) with RECIST v1.1 (end of cycle 1; then every 8 wks). Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), efficacy in pts with/without baseline CNS disease, and safety. Results: There were 74 evaluable pts with advanced/metastatic NTRK-fp solid tumors (Table). Median duration of survival follow-up in all pts was 14.2 mo (range 0.1–29.7). BICR ORR was 63.5% (95% CI 51.5–74.4), with 5 complete responses (6.8%). Median BICR DOR was 12.9 mo (95% CI 9.3–NE); median BICR PFS was 11.2 mo (95% CI 8.0–15.7); median OS was 23.9 mo (16.0–NE). In pts with no baseline CNS disease (investigator-assessed; n=55), BICR ORR was 65.5% (95% CI 51.4–77.8) and median BICR DOR in responders was 12.9 mo (95% CI 9.3–NE). In pts with baseline CNS disease (investigator-assessed; n=19), BICR ORR was 57.9% (95% CI 33.5–79.8) and median BICR DOR in responders was 6.0 mo (95% CI 4.2–NE). Safety was in line with that previously reported; the most common ≥grade 3 treatment-related AEs were weight gain (8, 7.1%), anemia (8, 7.1%), and fatigue (7, 6.2%). Conclusions: In this updated analysis, including more pts and longer follow-up, entrectinib continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses in pts with NTRK-fp solid tumors, with and without baseline CNS disease. Clinical trial information: NCT02097810, NCT02568267 . [Table: see text]

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207