MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of zenocutuzumab, a HER2 x HER3 bispecific antibody, across advanced NRG1 fusion (NRG1+) cancers.

2022· article· en· W4281936531 on OpenAlexaff
Alison M. Schram, Kōichi Goto, Dong‐Wan Kim, Patricia Martín-Romano, Sai‐Hong Ignatius Ou, Grainne M. O’Kane, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Kumiko Umemoto, M. Duruisseaux, Cindy Neuzillet, Frans L. Opdam, Misako Nagasaka, Benjamin A. Weinberg, Teresa Macarulla, Andrew K. Joe, Jim Ford, Viktoriya Stalbovskaya, Ernesto Wasserman, Alexander Drilon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointCancerPhases of clinical researchInternal medicineOncologyPopulationResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsAntibodyStage (stratigraphy)Clinical trialCancer researchImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

105 Background: NRG1 fusions are rare oncogenic drivers that have been identified in a variety of solid tumors. These proteins bind HER3, leading to HER2/HER3 heterodimerization and oncogenic transformation. Zenocutuzumab (MCLA-128; Zeno) is a Biclonics antibody that overcomes HER3 mediated NRG1 (or NRG1 fusion) signaling in tumor cells. Zeno docks on HER2, then binds to and blocks the NRG1 fusion-HER3 interaction and HER3 heterodimerization with HER2. Zeno is being evaluated in patients (pts) with NRG1+ cancer in the ongoing pivotal phase 2 part of the eNRGy study and early access program (EAP). Methods: Pts with NRG1 + solid tumors previously treated with or not candidates for standard therapy, aged ≥ 18 years, with ECOG PS ≤ 2, and measurable (RECIST 1.1) or evaluable disease, were enrolled. NRG1 fusions were determined by next generation sequencing (NGS) before enrollment. Zeno (750 mg IV Q2W) was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor imaging was conducted every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint is investigator (INV)-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints include duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results: As of 12 Jan 2022, 99 pts with NRG1 + cancer (85 eNRGy, 14 EAP) were enrolled. Efficacy was assessed in 73 pts who received ≥ 1 dose of Zeno and who were enrolled as of 12 Jul 2021 to allow for the opportunity to have ≥ 6 months (mo) follow-up and met the criteria for the primary efficacy population. Median age was 59 y (range 22–84), 58% were female, 47%/53% pts had ECOG PS 0/1. Tumor types were non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 41 pts), pancreas cancer (18 pts), breast cancer (5 pts), cholangiocarcinoma (3 pts), colorectal cancer (2 pts), and 4 other tumor types (1 pt each), with a median 2 prior systemic therapies (range 0-9). The most frequent fusion partners were CD74 (27%), SLC3A2 (18%), and ATP1B1 (15%). Among the 71 pts with measurable disease, the INV-assessed confirmed ORR was 34% (90% CI, 25;44), including responses in NSCLC (35%; 14/40 pts), pancreas cancer (39%; 7/18 pts), breast cancer (2/4 pts), and cholangiocarcinoma (1/3 pts). Responses occurred at the first tumor assessment in 20/24 responders, and are ongoing in 13 pts. Treatment is ongoing in 22 pts (13 NSCLC, 6 pancreas, 3 other solid tumors). Median DOR was 9.1 mo (95% CI, 5.2-12.0). Kaplan-Meier estimate of DOR rate at 6 mo was 70%. Among the 208 pts treated with Zeno monotherapy across all dosing schedules in the phase 2 setting, for individual adverse events irrespective of causality, grade ≥ 3 events were reported in <5% of pts. Conclusions: Zeno demonstrated robust and durable efficacy in pts with advanced NRG1+ cancer regardless of tumor histology. A well tolerated safety profile of Zeno was observed. Clinical trial information: NCT02912949.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.414 · 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

Citations66
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207