MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of larotrectinib in adult and pediatric patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion-positive primary central nervous system tumors.

2021· article· en· W3166447977 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Perreault, Cornelis M. van Tilburg, Birgit Geoerger, Karsten Nysom, Ingrid Øra, Igor T. Gavrilovic, Ricarda Norenberg, Laura Dima, E.A. De La Cuesta, Alexander Drilon, François Doz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrk receptorMedicineInternal medicineNeuroblastomaOncologyFusion geneTropomyosin receptor kinase BTropomyosin receptor kinase ACancerCancer researchNeurotrophinReceptorNeurotrophic factorsGeneCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2002 Background: Neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) gene fusions are oncogenic drivers in various tumor types, including central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Larotrectinib is a first-in-class, highly selective TRK inhibitor approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with TRK fusion cancer, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 78% across 175 adult and pediatric patients with various non-CNS cancers (McDermott et al, ESMO 2020). We report data on patients with TRK fusion-positive primary CNS tumors. Methods: Patients with primary CNS tumors harboring an NTRK gene fusion enrolled in two clinical trials (NCT02637687, NCT02576431) were identified. Larotrectinib was administered until disease progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity. Response was investigator assessed. Results: As of July 2020, 33 patients with TRK fusion-positive CNS tumors were identified: 19 high-grade gliomas (HGG), 8 low-grade gliomas (LGG), 2 glioneuronal tumors, 2 neuroepithelial tumors, 1 CNS neuroblastoma, and 1 small round blue cell tumor. The patients had gene fusions involving NTRK2 (n = 24; 73%), NTRK1 (n = 5; 15%), and NTRK3 (n = 4; 12%). Median age was 8.9 years (range 1.3–79.0); 26 patients were pediatric ( < 18 years). Patients were heavily pre-treated with 45% having 2 or more prior lines of systemic therapy. The ORR in all patients was 30% (95% CI 16–49): 3 complete responses (all in pediatric patients), 7 partial responses (2 pending confirmation), 20 stable disease (including 15 pts > 6 months), and 3 progressive disease. The ORR in patients with HGG and LGG were 26% (95% CI 9–51) and 38% (95% CI 9–76), respectively. In all patients, the 24-week disease control rate was 73% (95% CI 54–87). Twenty-three of 28 patients (82%) with measurable disease had tumor shrinkage. The median time to response was 1.9 months. Median duration of response (DoR) was not reached (95% CI 3.8–not estimable [NE]) at a median follow-up of 12.0 months. The 12-month DoR rate was 75% (95% CI 45–100). Median PFS was 18.3 months (95% CI 6.7–NE) at a median follow-up of 16.5 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (95% CI 16.9–NE) at a median follow-up of 16.5 months, with a 12-month OS rate of 85% (95% CI 71–99). Duration of treatment ranged from 1.2 to 31.3+ months. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported by 20 patients and were Grade 3–4 in 3 patients (9%). There were no treatment discontinuations due to TRAEs. Conclusions: In patients with TRK fusion-positive CNS tumors, larotrectinib demonstrated rapid and durable responses, high disease control rate, and a favorable safety profile. These results support testing for NTRK gene fusions in patients of all ages with CNS tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02637687, NCT02576431.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207