MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall survival benefit from tebentafusp in patients with best response of progressive disease.

2021· article· en· W3172413452 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony M. Joshua, Jean‐François Baurain, Sophie Piperno‐Neumann, Paul Nathan, Jessica C. Hassel, Marcus O. Butler, Max Schlaak, Ryan J. Sullivan, Sebastian Ochsenreither, Reinhard Dummer, John M. Kirkwood, Joseph J. Sacco, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Marlana Orloff, Josep M. Piulats, Shaad E. Abdullah, Mughda Deo, Sarah Lockwood, Piotr Rutkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortPembrolizumabProgressive diseaseOncologyInterim analysisRandomized controlled trialDiseaseNuclear medicineCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9509 Background: Tebentafusp (tebe) is the first T cell receptor (TCR) therapeutic to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit in a randomized Phase 3 (Ph3) study [ NCT03070392 ]. In Ph2, 42% of pts with best overall response (BOR) of progressive disease (PD) survived > 1 year (yr), suggesting RECIST-based radiographic assessments underestimate OS benefit of tebe. Here we analyzed OS in the Ph3 study in a cohort of pts with BOR of PD by comparing tebe to the control arm of investigator’s choice (IC). Methods: 378 pts were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to tebe vs. IC. BOR was assessed by investigators using RECIST v1.1. Treatment beyond first disease progression (TBP) was permitted for both arms. On the IC arm, only patients receiving pembrolizumab (pembro) continued with TBP and were included in the TBP-related analyses. No crossover to tebe was permitted; investigators were free to choose subsequent therapy. This analysis was conducted on the first interim analysis (data extracted Nov-2020). Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS were based on Day 100 landmark to eliminate immortal time bias and to capture majority of the PDs. Results: By Day 100, PD as BOR occurred in 52% (130/252) of tebe pts (PD-tebe) vs. 60% (76/126) of IC pts (PD-IC). Key baseline characteristics including lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, ECOG performance, age, and sex were similar between PD-tebe vs PD-IC. The proportion of pts with PD due to progression of target lesions (TL), non-TL, or new lesions were also similar between the two groups. More pts received TBP among PD-tebe 53% (69/130) vs PD-pembro 16% (10/61). Median duration of TBP was longer for PD-tebe (7 weeks) vs PD-Pembro (3 weeks). The safety profile of PD-tebe pts during TBP was similar to all tebe-treated pts. OS was superior for PD-tebe vs PD-IC, HR = 0.41 (95%CI 0.25-0.66), even when considering key baseline covariates. While some pts had regression of TL despite diagnosis of PD ( < 10% of pts), the OS benefit remained even when limited to pts with best change of tumor growth of TL, HR 0.46 (0.29, 0.73). 58% (75/130) PD-tebe and 52% (40/76) PD-IC pts received subsequent therapies. In a landmark OS analysis of these pts beginning on 1st day of subsequent therapy, prior tebe was associated with better OS vs. prior IC, HR 0.59 (95%CI 0.36-0.96). Conclusions: Tebe is the first TCR therapeutic to demonstrate an OS benefit in a solid tumor. Surprisingly, a strong OS benefit from tebe is observed even in pts with BOR of PD, suggesting that RECIST-based radiographic assessments do not capture the complete benefit from tebe. The safety profile of tebe during TBP was consistent with that for long-term tebe treatment. 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207