MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215059890 · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.11.011

A phase 1b study evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of berzosertib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

2021· article· en· W3215059890 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ruth Plummer, Emma Dean, Hendrik‐Tobias Arkenau, Charles H. Redfern, Alexander I. Spira, Jason M. Melear, Ki Y. Chung, Jordi Ferrer-Playan, Thomas Goddemeier, Giuseppe Locatelli, Jennifer Dong, Patricia Fleuranceau-Morel, Iván Díaz-Padilla, Geoffrey I. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueLung Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEMD SeronoSierra OncologyMacroGenicsBeiGeneJanssen PharmaceuticalsMerck KGaASanofiTG TherapeuticsAmgenPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineTolerabilityInternal medicineLung cancerNauseaAdverse effectOncologyGastroenterologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Berzosertib (formerly M6620, VX-970) is an intravenous, highly potent and selective, first-in-class ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase inhibitor. We assessed the safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of berzosertib plus gemcitabine in an expansion cohort of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The association of efficacy with TP53 status and other tumor markers was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: (days 1 and 8) at the recommended phase 2 dose established in the dose escalation part of the study. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients received at least one dose of study treatment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (55.3%), anemia (52.6%), and nausea (39.5%). Gemcitabine had no apparent effect on the PK of berzosertib. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10.5% (4/38, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-22.5%). In the exploratory analysis, the ORR was 30.0% (3/10, 90% CI: 9.0-61.0%) in patients with high loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and 11.0% (1/9, 90% CI: 1.0-43.0%) in patients with low LOH. The ORR was 33.0% (2/6, 90% CI: 6.0-73.0%) in patients with high tumor mutational burden (TMB), 12.5% (2/16, 90% CI: 2.0-34.0%) in patients with intermediate TMB, and 0% (0/3, 90% CI: 0.0-53.6%) in patients with low TMB. CONCLUSIONS: Berzosertib plus gemcitabine was well tolerated in patients with advanced, pre-treated NSCLC. Based on the observed clinical efficacy, future clinical trials should involve genomically selected patients.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLung CancerSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207