MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

INT230-6 monotherapy and in combination with ipilimumab (IPI) across a broad spectrum of refractory soft tissue sarcomas (STS) [Intensity IT-01; BMS#CA184-592].

2022· article· en· W4286298413 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Ingham, James Hu, Giles F. Whalen, Jacob Thomas, Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Diana L. Hanna, Anthony J. Olszanski, Christian F. Meyer, Nilofer S. Azad, Luis H. Camacho, Syed Mahmood, Lewis H. Bender, Ian Walters, Lillian L. Siu, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerInternal medicineNauseaCombination therapyGastroenterologyAdverse effectVomitingCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11515 Background: INT230-6 is a novel intratumoral (IT) agent with a dual anti-cancer mechanism (tumor cytoreduction while stimulating antigen presentation and recruitment of T-cells). The drug is comprised of cisplatin (CIS) and vinblastine (VIN) co-formulated with an amphiphilic molecule that enables drug dispersion throughout tumors and passive diffusion into cancer cells following IT delivery. In the neoadjuvant setting, a single injection can cause necrosis in > 95% of the tumor and recruit TILs. Combining with anti-CTLA-4 improved responses in preclinical models. Methods: INT230-6 dose is set by the tumor’s longest diameter and is proportional to the injected disease volume. INT230-6 is administered IT Q2W for 5 treatment sessions followed by maintenance every 9 weeks as monotherapy or with IPI 3mg/kg IV Q3W for 4 doses. Biopsies from injected tumors are obtained pretreatment and Day 28 for immunoprofiling. Results: 22 subjects with various advanced STS histologies with a median age of 64 and a median of 3 prior systemic therapies were enrolled (11 INT230-6 alone, 11 IPI combination). There were 178 image-guided IT INT230-6 injections (107 to deep tumors) at INT230-6 doses ranging from 5 to 242 mL (121mg CIS, 24.2mg VIN, doses which vastly exceed the usual IV doses of these drugs). PK analysis showed that > 95% of drug agents remain in the tumor. The most common (> 25%) all-grade related adverse events (AEs) in evaluable monotherapy subjects (n = 10) were pain (80%), decreased appetite (40%), nausea (40%), anemia (30%), fatigue (30%) and vomiting (30%). Tolerability was similar for the combination with IPI. Most events were low grade. The incidence of grade 3 AEs for the INT230-6 arm was 30% and for the IPI combination was 10%. There were no related grade 4 or 5 AEs in either cohort. RECIST metrics may not accurately reflect clinical benefit with this treatment given large volumes of INT230-6 is repeatedly injected into a tumor and local inflammation may occur. Paired biopsies showed reduction in proliferating tumor cells and an increase in T-cell infiltrates. The disease control rate at the first imaging timepoint for evaluable INT230-6 subjects (n = 9) was 56% and for evaluable IPI combination (n = 5) was 80%. Abscopal effects were seen in 2 monotherapy subjects, though most uninjected tumors were not tracked. The estimated 1-year overall survival was 88% for the IPI combo and 60% for the monotherapy cohort. Conclusions: IT INT230-6 is well tolerated as monotherapy and combined with IPI. STS, which is typically not sensitive to immunotherapy, may be amenable to INT230-6 or IPI combo to create antigens and promote a systemic immune response. Preliminary efficacy using INT230-6 alone is encouraging and will be evaluated in a global phase 3 trial. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether the addition of IPI may improve patient outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03058289.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCAR-T cell therapy research→French-language works237,207→