MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122499681 · doi:10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.9

Safety and efficacy of anti–PD-1 antibody dostarlimab in patients (pts) with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) solid cancers: Results from GARNET study.

2021· article· en· W3122499681 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry André, Dominique Berton, Giuseppe Curigliano, Susan Ellard, J.M. Pérez, Hendrik‐Tobias Arkenau, Cyril Abdeddaim, Víctor Moreno, Wei Guo, Ellie Im, Naureen Starling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsKelowna General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiscontinuationOncologyCohortPopulationResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsClinical trialPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9 Background: Dostarlimab is a humanized anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody that binds the PD-1 receptor, blocking interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. The ongoing phase 1 GARNET study (NCT02715284) is evaluating dostarlimab in pts with advanced solid tumors. Here we present safety and efficacy data from cohort F. Methods: Cohort F of the GARNET trial enrolled pts with dMMR or POLEmut non-endometrial solid tumors; the majority were gastrointestinal (GI) in origin. Pts must have progressed per blinded independent central review (BICR) following prior systemic therapy for advanced disease and had dMMR status by local immunohistochemistry. Pts received 500 mg dostarlimab Q3W for 4 cycles and 1000 mg Q6W until discontinuation. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) were assessed by BICR per RECIST v1.1. Pts were included in the efficacy analysis if they received ≥1 dose of dostarlimab, had measurable disease at baseline, and 6 mo of follow up. All pts who received ≥1 dose were included in the safety analysis. Results: 144 pts were included in the safety analysis, with 106 dMMR pts in the efficacy analysis (1 POLEmut pt with a confirmed PR was not included in this population). Of the 106 pts, 99 (93.4%) had GI tumors. Confirmed ORR in dMMR pts was 38.7% (95% CI: 29.4, 48.6), with a complete response rate of 7.5%. ORR was consistent across tumor type (Table). At the data cutoff, median duration of follow-up (n = 107; dMMR and POLEmut pts) was 12.4 months and median DOR was not reached. The Kaplan–Meier estimated probability of maintaining response at 12 and 18 months was 91.0% and 80.9% respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 68.8% of pts; 8.3% of pts experienced at least 1 grade ≥3 TRAE. The most common was lipase increased in 2 (1.4%) pts. Treatment-related serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in 6 (5.5%) pts, and 2 pts (1.8%) discontinued dostarlimab due to a TRAE. No deaths were attributed to dostarlimab. Conclusions: Dostarlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in a cohort of dMMR solid tumor pts, the majority of whom had GI cancers. The safety profile was consistent with other cohorts in GARNET, with immune-related TRAEs infrequent and low grade. Clinical trial information: NCT02715284. [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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations98
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207