MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

FIREFLY-1 (PNOC 026): A phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tovorafenib (DAY101) in pediatric patients with <i>RAF</i>-altered recurrent or progressive low-grade glioma or advanced solid tumors.

2022· article· en· W4282036173 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Landi, David S. Ziegler, Andrea Flynn Franson, Patricia Baxter, Sarah Leary, Valérie Larouche, Angela J. Waanders, Jasper van der Lugt, Geoffrey McCowage, François Doz, Nada Jabado, Elisabetta Schiavello, Michal Zápotocký, Izzy Cornelio, Samuel C. Blackman, Daniel Da Costa, Michael C. Cox, Olaf Witt, Lindsay Kilburn, Jordan R. Hansford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineAdverse effectGliomaCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS10062 Background: RAF gene fusions ( BRAF and RAF1) and BRAF V600E mutations are oncogenic drivers found on a mutually exclusive basis in most pediatric low-grade gliomas (LGGs). In addition, RAF fusions ( BRAF and RAF1) have also been identified in other pediatric solid tumors. Tovorafenib (DAY101) is an investigational, oral, highly selective, CNS-penetrant, small molecule, type II pan-RAF inhibitor. In contrast to type I BRAF inhibitors, tovorafenib does not induce RAS-dependent paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway. In the phase 1 PNOC014 study in pediatric patients with recurrent/progressive LGG, tovorafenib was well tolerated and 7/8 patients with tumor harboring RAF fusions had meaningful clinical benefit. Recently, a child with a novel SNX8-BRAF fusion spindle cell sarcoma demonstrated a rapid and deep response when treated with tovorafenib. Methods: FIREFLY-1 (NCT04775485) is an open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tovorafenib monotherapy in pediatric patients with RAF-altered recurrent or progressive LGG or advanced solid tumors. The initial design included only patients with LGG (arm 1). Two new arms have now been added; arm 2 will allow tovorafenib treatment for patients with LGG harboring an activating RAF alteration after completion of enrollment to arm 1 and prior to tovorafenib regulatory approval; arm 3 will enroll patients with advanced solid tumors harboring an activating RAF fusion. Eligible patients are 6 months to 25 years of age, who have received ≥1 prior line of systemic therapy with documented radiographic progression, have evaluable and/or measurable disease by appropriate criteria, a Karnofsky or Lansky performance score of at least 50, and adequate organ function. Patients are excluded if their tumor has other driver mutations, they have neurofibromatosis type 1, central serous retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion, clinically significant active cardiovascular disease, or are currently being treated with a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor or inducer other than those allowed per protocol. Approximately 140 patients in total will be enrolled including 60 in arm 1, 60 in arm 2 and 20 in arm 3. Tovorafenib will be administered at 420 mg/m2 (not to exceed 600 mg) weekly (days 1, 8, 15 and 22) for 26, 28-day cycles (in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). They may then continue tovorafenib or enter a drug holiday period. The primary endpoint is overall response rate, as defined by the RANO criteria (arm 1) or RECIST v1.1 (arm 3) and as determined by an independent radiology review committee. Secondary endpoints (arms 1 and 3) include safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, duration of response, time to response and progression-free survival. Tovorafenib is available in tablet or liquid suspension formulations. Clinical trial information: NCT04775485.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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