MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of response stratification factors from pooled efficacy analyses of afamitresgene autoleucel (“Afami-cel” [Formerly ADP-A2M4]) in metastatic synovial sarcoma and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma phase 1 and phase 2 trials.

2022· article· en· W4281719775 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. D’Angelo, Steven Attia, Jean‐Yves Blay, Sandra J. Strauss, Claudia Maria Valverde Morales, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Erin Van Winkle, Thejo Annareddy, Chandra Sattigari, Evangelo Diamantopoulos, Dennis Williams, Elliot Norry, Swethajit Biswas, Dejka M. Araujo, Brian Andrew Van Tine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInternal medicineSynovial sarcomaClinical endpointOncologyPhases of clinical researchSarcomaSurgeryChemotherapyClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11562 Background: Afami-cel is an autologous, HLA-A*02-restricted, specific peptide enhanced affinity receptor, T-cell therapy engineered to target MAGE-A4+ solid tumors. The pivotal, 2-cohort, single-arm, Phase 2, SPEARHEAD-1 trial (NCT04044768) with afami-cel met its primary endpoint based on Cohort 1 data. As of September 1, 2021, in 47 patients (pts) with metastatic synovial sarcoma (SyS) or myxoid/round cell liposarcoma (MRCLS), the overall response rate (ORR) per independent review was 34% with encouraging durability (Van Tine, et al. Paper 30: CTOS 2021; Virtual). To identify potential stratification factors for response and assess whether response is a proxy for progression-free survival (PFS), we present pooled analyses using data from the prior Phase 1 trial (NCT03132922) and Cohort 1 of the SPEARHEAD-1 trial. Methods: Eligible pts (16–75 years) were HLA-A*02+ with MAGE-A4+ tumors. Pts received afami-cel after lymphodepleting chemotherapy. The pooled analyses evaluated ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator review, stratified by 7 factors, and safety. Results: In the pooled data, 69 pts received afami-cel (2.12–9.99×10 9 transduced T-cells) and were evaluable for response (Phase 1, n = 18; Phase 2, n = 51); all expressed one eligible HLA-A*02 allele. Median (range) for: age was 42 years (19–76), number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (1–12), and tumor MAGE-A4 H-score was 230 (60–300). Median (range) H-score was higher in SyS (256 [60–300]) than in MRCLS (180 [112–230]). The pooled investigator-assessed ORR was 36.2% (40.7% in SyS; 10.0% in MRCLS). Responses occurred across a wide MAGE-A4 H-score range (134–300). Median (range) duration of response was 52 weeks (8.29–75.14). Response rate was higher in the 59 pts with SyS: with ≤2 vs ≥3 prior lines of therapy (55.2% vs 26.7%), baseline target lesion sum of longest diameters <10cm vs ≥10cm (53.1% vs 25.9%), MAGE-A4 H-score ≥200 vs <200 (46.3% vs 27.8%), without vs with bridging therapy (48.6% vs 29.2%), who were female vs male (46.4% vs 35.5%), aged ≥40 vs <40 years (45.7% vs 33.3%), and from North America vs Europe (42.6% vs 33.3%). In responders vs non-responders with SyS, respectively, median PFS was 58.3 vs 11. 0 weeks (log-rank p-value <0.0001); the probability of being progression-free at 24 weeks was 0.8 vs 0.2. The pooled benefit:risk profile of afami-cel was similar to that in the SPEARHEAD-1 trial (Van Tine, et al. Paper 30: CTOS 2021; Virtual.). Conclusions: We show that baseline tumor burden, prior systemic treatment history, and MAGE-A4 tumor expression levels are potential factors associated with response to afami-cel, although their true predictive value for response status awaits confirmation. Our findings will inform the ongoing clinical development of afami-cel in sarcoma, especially for prognostic studies with PFS or overall survival endpoints. Clinical trial information: NCT04044768, NCT03132922.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 OncologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207