MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of derazantinib in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients with FGFR2 mutations or amplifications: Interim results from the phase 2 study FIDES-01.

2022· article· en· W4206730501 on OpenAlexaff
Milind Javle, Ghassan K. Abou‐Alfa, Teresa Macarulla, Nicola Personeni, Jorge Adeva, Francesca Bergamo, David Malka, Arndt Vogel, Jennifer J. Knox, T.R. Jeffry Evans, Miryana Dimova-Dobreva, William Proctor Harris, Mikael Saulay, Marc Engelhardt, Stephan Braun, Michele Droz Dit Busset, Mitesh J. Borad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineInterim analysisTolerabilityInterimOncologyCohortPopulationProgression-free survivalTumor progressionClinical trialGastroenterologyProgressive diseasePhases of clinical researchSurgeryAdverse effectCancerDiseaseChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

427 Background: Derazantinib, a potent anti- FGFR1-3 oral kinase inhibitor, has shown clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity (21%), durable responses (median, 6.4 months), and progression-free survival (median, 8.0 months) in patients (pts) with FGFR2 fusion (FGFR2 F )-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and with a manageable toxicity profile. Herein, we report an interim analysis of the clinical efficacy data of derazantinib for pts with iCCA harboring FGFR2 mutations or amplifications (FGFR2 M/A ), a potential therapeutic option currently not addressed by FGFR inhibitors. Methods: Study FIDES-01 enrolls in a dedicated cohort pts with FGFR2 M/A+ advanced iCCA who received previous chemotherapy. Pts receive 300 mg derazantinib daily until disease progression, death or intolerance. The primary endpoint is the proportion of pts alive and free of disease progression at 3 months (PFS3; RECIST 1.1, central imaging review) using a Simon’s two-stage sample-size minimizing statistical design. The interim analysis population comprises 23 pts dosed (intention to treat) who had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment (or clinical progression, or died) by June 3, 2021, using investigator assessments based on RECIST 1.1. Results: To date, 28 pts have been enrolled and dosed. FGFR2 M/A observed in these pts included missense point mutations (78%), other short variants (11%) and amplifications (11%). Transition from stage 1 to stage 2 of the study was achieved earlier than planned after 8 (67%) of 12 pts were assessed as PFS3 based on central imaging review. In 23 pts included in this interim analysis for efficacy, the best overall response (investigator assessment) was confirmed partial response in two (8.7%) and stable disease in additional 15 pts (65.2%), resulting in a disease control rate of 73.9% (95% CI, 51.6–89.8). Using Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median PFS was 7.3 months (95%CI, 3.5–16.7) and the probability of being progression-free at 3 months and at 6 months were 76.3% (95%CI, 51.9–89.4) and 50.3% (95%CI, 21.7–73.4), respectively. Clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy was observed across all types of genetic aberrations. The safety profile of derazantinib in FGFR2 M/A+ iCCA pts was consistent with that previously reported for FGFR2 F+ iCCA pts. Conclusions: This interim data in study FIDES-01 suggest that derazantinib treatment provides clinical benefit to pts with advanced iCCA harboring FGFR2 M/A who progressed after at least one line of standard chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the first report of clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy in a prospectively planned cohort of iCCA pts harboring FGFR2 M/A . The study is ongoing to accrue 43 patients, assessing derazantinib as a therapeutic option for FGFR2 M/A+ iCCA pts after disease progression on first-line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03230318.

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)0.006
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207