MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

538 Updated survival of patients with previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma who received tebentafusp

2021· article· en· W3214459545 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph J. Sacco, Richard D. Carvajal, Marcus O. Butler, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Jessica C. Hassel, Alexandra P. Ikeguchi, Leonel F. Hernandez‐Aya, Paul Nathan, Omid Hamid, Josep M. Piulats, Matthew J. Rioth, Jason J. Luke, Enrique Espinosa, Serge Leyvraz, Chris Holland, Michelle L. McCully, Shaad E. Abdullah, Takami Sato

Bibliographic record

VenueRegular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineGastroenterologyNuclear medicineUrologySurgeryOncologyCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Tebentafusp, a bispecific fusion protein consisting of an affinity-enhanced T cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target gp100+ cells, has shown an overall survival benefit for patients with untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) in a Ph3 trial (NCT03070392). Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is a historically treatment-refractory tumor with 1-year (yr), 2-yr and 3-yr OS rates of 37%, 15% and 9%, respectively, and median OS of 7.8 months in 2L+ patients.<sup>1</sup> In the primary analysis of the phase 2 IMCgp100–102 study (NCT02570308) enrolling patients with previously treated mUM, the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 62% with median OS of 16.8 months.<sup>2</sup> We present updated OS and safety after 2-year follow-up. <h3>Methods</h3> 127 HLA-A*02:01+ 2L+ mUM patients were dosed weekly with tebentafusp following intra-patient dose escalation: 20mcg dose 1, 30mcg dose 2 and 68mcg dose 3+. Primary objective was ORR and secondary objectives included safety, OS and PFS. Here we present the updated OS and safety (data cut-off 31 Mar 2021). <h3>Results</h3> Median follow-up was 29.9 mos (range 1.8 – 59.9 mos). With extended follow-up, the 1-yr, 2-yr and 3-yr OS rates were 61%, 37% and 24%, respectively (figure 1). Median OS remained unchanged at 16.8 mos (95% CI, 12.8 – 22.5 mos).Mean and median duration of treatment were 9.5 mos and 5.6 mos (0 – 47.4 mos), respectively. As previously reported, most treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred early on treatment. Beyond 6 months, no TRAE led to treatment discontinuation. No new safety signals, changes in the type or treatment-related deaths were reported. Beyond 12 months, there were a total of 7 Grade (G) 3 or 4 events in 3 (7%) patients, all were temporally related to tumor progression and majority included lab abnormalities. Episodes of rash, a common tebentafusp-related AE early on-treatment, were infrequent after 6 months, with no Grade 3 or 4 events. <h3>Conclusions</h3> This study provides the longest follow-up of OS and safety of a soluble TCR therapeutic to date. Tebentafusp continued to show promising survival for 2L+ mUM patients with estimated 2-yr OS rate of 37%. Tebentafusp’s safety profile was as expected and consistent with primary analysis showing that most adverse events occur early on treatment with incidence and severity decreasing with prolonged exposure. <h3>Trial Registration</h3> NCT02570308 <h3>References</h3> Rantala ES, Hernberg M, Kivela TT. Overall survival after treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. <i>Melanoma Res</i> 2019;<b>29</b>:561–568. Sacco JJ, Carvajal R, Butler MO, et al. A phase (ph) II, multi-center study of the safety and efficacy of tebentafusp (tebe) (IMCgp100) in patients (pts) with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). <i>Ann Oncol</i> 2020;<b>31</b>: S1442–S1143. <h3>Ethics Approval</h3> The institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each center approved the trial. The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegular and Young Investigator Award AbstractsSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207