MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LEAP-005: A phase II multicohort study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated selected solid tumors—Results from the gastric cancer cohort.

2021· article· en· W3123856695 on OpenAlexaff
Hyun Cheol Chung, Zarnie Lwin, Carlos Gomez‐Roca, Federico Longo, Eduardo Yáñez, Eduardo Castañón Álvarez, Donna M. Graham, Mark Doherty, Philippe A. Cassier, Juanita Lopez, Bristi Basu, Andrew Hendifar, Corinne Maurice‐Dror, Sanjeev Gill, Razi Ghori, Peter Kubiak, Fan Jin, Kevin Norwood, Esma Saâda-Bouzid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenvatinibMedicinePembrolizumabInternal medicineCancerResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyCohortPhases of clinical researchAdverse effectGastroenterologySurgeryClinical trialImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

230 Background: Lenvatinib, an anti-angiogenic multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with the anti‒PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with manageable safety in the first- or second-line in a phase 2 trial of patients with advanced gastric cancer. LEAP-005 (NCT03797326) is a phase 2, multicohort, nonrandomized, open-label study evaluating efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors; here, we present findings from the gastric cancer cohort of LEAP-005. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic and/or unresectable gastric cancer, received at least 2 prior lines of therapy, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS of 0‒1, and provided a tissue sample evaluable for PD-L1 expression. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab (approximately 2 years) or until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment with lenvatinib could continue beyond 2 years in patients experiencing clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were ORR (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR; comprising CR, PR, and SD), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W from treatment initiation for 54 weeks, then Q12W to week 102, and Q24W thereafter. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the gastric cancer cohort; 87% were male, 58% were aged < 65 years, and 71% had PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1. Median time from first dose to data cutoff (April 10, 2020) was 7.0 months (range, 1.9‒11.9); 19 patients (61%) had discontinued treatment. ORR was 10% (95% CI, 2‒26); 1 patient had CR (3%), and 2 had a PR (6%). 12 patients (39%) had SD. Median DOR was not reached (range, 2.1+ to 2.3+ months). DCR was 48% (95% CI, 30‒67). Median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8‒4.2). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.6‒8.7). 28 patients (90%) had treatment-related AEs, including 13 patients (42%) with grade 3‒5 AEs. 1 patient had a treatment-related AE that led to death (hemorrhage). 8 patients (26%) had immune-mediated AEs: hypothyroidism (n = 5), hyperthyroidism (n = 2), and pneumonitis (n = 1). There were no infusion-related reactions. Conclusions: In patients with advanced gastric cancer who received 2 prior lines of therapy, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile. Based on these data, enrollment in the gastric cancer cohort has been expanded to 100 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03797326.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207