MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-primary endpoint of overall survival for tebentafusp (tebe)-induced rash in a phase 3 randomized trial comparing tebe versus investigator’s choice (IC) in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma.

2021· article· en· W3170881181 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica C. Hassel, Piotr Rutkowski, Jean‐François Baurain, Marcus O. Butler, Max Schlaak, Ryan J. Sullivan, Sebastian Ochsenreither, Reinhard Dummer, John M. Kirkwood, Anthony M. Joshua, Joseph J. Sacco, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Marlana Orloff, Richard D. Carvajal, Omid Hamid, Shaad E. Abdullah, Chris Holland, Howard Goodall, Paul Nathan, Sophie Piperno‐Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRashClinical endpointErythemaInterim analysisAdverse effectInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialMelanomaPopulationDermatologySurgeryGastroenterologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9527 Background: Tebe is a bispecific consisting of an affinity-enhanced T cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target gp100+ cells. In this Phase (Ph) 3, randomized trial of first line (1L) metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) [NCT03070392], tebe significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs. investigator’s choice (IC) in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). In previous trials, tebe-related skin adverse events (AEs), hypothesized to be on-target, off-tumor activity against gp100-expressing melanocytes, were associated with improved OS. This association was tested prospectively as a co-primary endpoint in the Ph3 study. Methods: 378 1L HLA-A*02:01+ mUM pts were randomized 2:1 to tebe (n = 252) or IC (n = 126). Co-primary endpoints were 1) OS in all randomized pts (ITT) and 2) OS in tebe-randomized pts who develop any grade rash in week (wk) 1 vs. all receiving IC. Rash was defined as composite of preferred AE terms. Melanocyte-related AEs (MRAEs) were defined as pigment change AEs in the skin or hair. Overall study-wide alpha was controlled at 0.05, with 90% assigned to ITT and 10% to rash. This analysis was conducted on the first interim analysis (data extracted Nov-2020). Results: In the 245 tebe treated pts, the characteristic skin related AEs included most frequently rash (at any time) in 201 pts (82%), pruritis in 167 pts (68%), MRAEs in 109 pts (45%) and erythema in 69 pts (28%). While rash, erythema and pruritis mostly occurred in the first 4 weeks, MRAEs occurred after a median of 2.7 mo. Rash captures most pts, 201/227 (89%), who have any of these skin related AEs. Rash occurred in 146 pts (60%) by wk 1; 179 pts (73%) by wk 2; and 195 pts (80%) by wk 3. Tebe pts with wk 1 rash had significantly longer OS vs. the IC arm, HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.53), p < 0.0001. The estimated 1-yr OS rates were 83% vs 58%, respectively. When expanded to include tebe pts with rash through wk 3, the 1-yr OS rate of 75% was still numerically higher than IC. The 50 (20%) tebe pts who did not experience rash by week 3 had 1-yr OS rate of 55%. Conclusions: In 1L mUM pts, tebe significantly improved OS compared to IC in the ITT analysis. Week 1 rash, presumed due to tebe redirection of T cells to gp100+ skin melanocytes, was associated with a very strong OS benefit. Therefore, rash may be a marker that the immune system can be mobilized by tebe to target gp100+ cells. The vast majority of tebe pts will develop a rash at some point, and tebe pts without rash may still derive benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03070392.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207