MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dabrafenib + trametinib (dab + tram) in relapsed/refractory (r/r) <i>BRAF</i> V600–mutant pediatric high-grade glioma (pHGG): Primary analysis of a phase II trial.

2022· article· en· W4281695494 on OpenAlexaff
Darren Hargrave, Keita Terashima, Junichi Hara, Uwe Kordes, Santhosh A. Upadhyaya, Felix Sahm, Éric Bouffet, Roger J. Packer, Olaf Witt, Lali Sandalic, Agnieszka Kieloch, Mark W. Russo, Kenneth J. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
KeywordsMedicineTrametinibInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyCohortPhases of clinical researchGliomaDabrafenibSurrogate endpointCancerClinical trialSurgeryCancer researchMetastatic melanoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2009 Background: HGGs comprise ≈10% of pediatric central nervous system tumors and are a leading cause of childhood cancer-related death. Overall response rates (ORRs) with current standards of care are low, particularly in the second line, and 2-y overall survival (OS) rates are ≤35%. BRAF V600 mutation is infrequent (≈5% of pHGGs) but associated with improved survival from time of initial diagnosis. In previous trials, dab monotherapy and dab + tram yielded encouraging outcomes in BRAF V600–mutant HGG in pediatric and adult patients (pts), respectively. We describe the results of a Phase II study (NCT02684058) of dab + tram in r/r BRAF V600–mutant pHGG. Methods: Pts aged 1 to <18 y with BRAF V600–mutant HGGs and Karnofsky/Lansky performance status ≥50% who had failed first-line therapy were enrolled in a single-arm cohort. Pts received dab twice daily (<12 y, 5.25 mg/kg/d; ≥12 y, 4.5 mg/kg/d) + tram once daily (<6 y, 0.032 mg/kg/d; ≥6 y, 0.025 mg/kg/d). The primary endpoint was ORR (independent review; HGG-RANO criteria); secondary endpoints included ORR (investigator review), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. Results: A total of 41 pts with diverse WHO Grade III/IV gliomas were enrolled; median time since diagnosis was 17.4 mo (range, 2.7-174.3 mo), and most had prior surgery (97.6%), radiotherapy (90.2%), and/or systemic antineoplastic therapy (80.5%). At data cutoff (August 23, 2021; median follow-up, 25.1 mo), 21 pts (51.2%) remained on treatment; most discontinuations (16 of 20) were due to progressive disease. Median exposure was 72.7 wk (range, 1.3-172.1 wk). The primary endpoint was met, with an independently assessed ORR of 56.1% (95% CI, 39.7%-71.5%). Median DOR was 22.2 mo (95% CI, 7.6 mo-not estimable [NE]; 12-mo Kaplan-Meier [KM] DOR rate, 62.2%), and median PFS was 9.0 mo (95% CI, 5.3-24.0 mo; 12-mo KM PFS rate, 44.1%). There were 14 deaths (34.1%), with 12 due to HGG and 2 due to serious adverse events (AEs; encephalomyelitis and intracranial pressure increased [n = 1 each], not treatment related per investigators); median OS was 32.8 mo (95% CI, 19.2 mo-NE; 12-mo KM OS rate, 76.3%). The most common all-cause AEs were pyrexia (51.2%), headache (34.1%), dry skin (31.7%), vomiting (29.3%), and diarrhea (24.4%). Two pts (4.9%) had AEs leading to discontinuation (both rash), and 26 (63.4%) had AEs leading to dose modification. Conclusions: Treatment with dab + tram demonstrated an improvement in ORR, response durability, and survival compared with estimates based on historical observations with current treatment approaches in r/r BRAF V600–mutant pHGG. Safety was consistent with the established profile of dab + tram in other indications. Thus, dab + tram may represent a critical treatment advance for this pt population with high unmet need. Clinical trial information: NCT02684058.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.009

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.423
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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Non-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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→