MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

428 Interim analysis of Phase 2 results for cemiplimab in patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) who progressed on or are intolerant to hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs)

2020· article· en· W3104819140 on OpenAlexaff
Karl D. Lewis, Ketty Peris, Aleksandar Sekulić, Alexander Stratigos, Lara Dunn, Zeynep Eroglu, Anne Lynn S. Chang, Michael R. Migden, Siyu Li, Kosalai Kal Mohan, Ebony Coates, Emmanuel Chiebuka Okoye, Jean‐François Baurain, Oliver Bechter, Axel Hauschild, Marcus O. Butler, Leonel F. Hernandez‐Aya, Lisa Licitra, Rogerio I. Neves, E.P. Yanez Ruiz, Frank Seebach, David M. Weinreich, George D. Yancopoulos, Israel Lowy, Timothy G. Bowler, Matthew G. Fury

Bibliographic record

VenueRegular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHedgehog Signaling Pathway Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityVismodegibInternal medicineClinical endpointInterim analysisBasal cell carcinomaProgression-free survivalOncologySurgeryGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyAdverse effectBasal cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> HHIs, vismodegib and sonidegib, are approved for treatment of patients with mBCC or locally advanced BCC who are not candidates for surgery or radiation. There is no approved option for patients who progress on or are intolerant to HHIs. Cemiplimab is an anti-programmed cell death-1 monoclonal antibody approved for treatment of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. Here we present the prespecified interim analysis of the mBCC cohort from the pivotal Phase 2, non-randomized, multi-center study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced BCC who discontinued HHI therapy due to disease progression, intolerance, or no better than stable disease after 9 months (NCT03132636). <h3>Methods</h3> Patients with mBCC (nodal and/or distant) received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks; interim analysis included patients with the opportunity to be followed for approximately 57 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary objectives included assessment of safety and tolerability, estimation of duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). <h3>Results</h3> In this interim efficacy analysis of 28 patients, 82.1% were males and median age was 65.5 years (range 38−90). Six patients had a partial response, per ICR, for an ORR of 21.4% (95% CI, 8.3, 41.0). ORR per investigator assessment was 28.6% (95% CI, 13.2, 48.7). Among responders, observed DOR was 9−23 months. Median time to response per ICR was 3.2 months (range, 2.1−10.5). Median Kaplan–Meier (KM) estimation of PFS was 8.3 months. Median DOR had not been reached and median KM estimation of OS was 25.7 months. All six responses had observed durations of at least 8 months. The disease control rate was 67.9% (95% CI, 47.6, 84.1).The most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) regardless of attribution were fatigue (50.0%), diarrhea (35.7%), pruritus (25.0%), and constipation (25.0%). Hypertension (n=2) was the only Grade ≥3 TEAE regardless of attribution occurring in ≥2 patients. TEAEs leading to death occurred in one (3.6%) patient who died from staphylococcal pneumonia, considered unrelated to study treatment. <h3>Conclusions</h3> This interim analysis demonstrates that cemiplimab is the first agent to provide clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity, including durable responses, in patients with mBCC after progression or intolerance on HHI therapy. <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> Editorial acknowledgment: Medical writing support was provided by Cindi Hoover, PhD of Prime, Knutsford, UK, funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sanofi. <h3>Ethics Approval</h3> The study protocols and all amendments were approved by the institutional review board at each participating study site. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with Good Clinical Practice guidelines as defined by the International Conference on Harmonization. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegular and Young Investigator Award AbstractsSame topicHedgehog Signaling Pathway StudiesFrench-language works237,207