MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase 1 study of E7386, a CREB-binding protein (CBP)/β-catenin interaction inhibitor, in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors including colorectal cancer: Updated dose-escalation part.

2023· article· en· W4317863296 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shunsuke Kondo, Akihito Kawazoe, Satoru Iwasa, Noboru Yamamoto, Yuri Ueda, Satoshi Nagao, Takayuki Kimura, Ippei Suzuki, Nozomi Hayata, Toshiyuki Tamai, Kohei Shitara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisai Canada
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityAdverse effectResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsInternal medicineColorectal cancerPharmacokineticsPharmacodynamicsOncologyCancerPharmacologyPhases of clinical researchClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

106 Background: E7386 is a novel oral anticancer agent that inhibits the binding of β-catenin to its transcriptional co-activator, CBP, thereby modulating Wnt/β-catenin signaling. In preclinical studies, E7386 showed promising activity (eg, modulation of tumor angiogenesis, alteration of the immune microenvironment, and inhibition of tumor growth). At a prior cutoff point for the dose-escalation part of a phase 1 study of E7386 in pts with advanced solid tumors, we reported 2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; both grade 3 decreased appetite) with E7386 160 mg twice daily (BID). Here we describe an update of the dose-escalation part of this phase 1 study—we mainly report updated safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy and biomarker results, which led to the inclusion of an additional dose level for investigation in the expansion part of this study. Methods: E7386 was administered orally in escalating doses on a BID continuous schedule in 28-day cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using CTCAE v5.0. Tolerability was judged by DLTs during cycle 1 (C1). Tumor response was assessed every 8 weeks from C1 day (D) 1, or sooner if clinically indicated, and at the end of treatment by investigators using RECIST v1.1. Samples for pharmacokinetic analyses were collected on C1D1 and C1D8; samples for biomarker analyses were collected at protocol-defined time points. To determine the appropriate dose(s) for the expansion part of this study, additional investigation of the dose-escalation part was conducted. Results: As of the data cutoff (DCO) date (30 June 2022), 36 pts (24 men, 12 women; median age, 61.5 y) were enrolled in E7386 dose cohorts (10 to 160 mg BID). Doses were tolerable up to 120 mg BID. The most common treatment-related AEs (all grades; > 10%) were nausea (80.6%), vomiting (58.3%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (16.7%), and alanine aminotransferase increased, decreased appetite, and diarrhea (13.9% each). Nausea and vomiting were well-controlled with antiemetics such as 5HT3 antagonists, except in the 160 mg BID cohort. Two pts with a Wnt-related adenomatous polyposis coli (APC)- mutation (small bowel adenocarcinoma and desmoid tumor) showed a partial response. As of the DCO date, 2 pts (who continued on-treatment as of that date) had received over 1.5 y of E7386 treatment. The preliminary PK analysis showed plasma exposure of E7386 generally increased with an increasing dose over the assessed dose range. FGF21 levels in plasma increased following E7386 administration. Conclusions: E7386 120 mg BID was tolerated and determined as the recommended dose for the expansion part. Based on additional analyses of the dose-escalation part of this study, further investigation of safety, preliminary efficacy, PK, and biomarker analyses of E7386 is ongoing using 2 dose levels (100 and 120 mg BID) in the expansion part. Clinical trial information: NCT03833700 .

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)0.001
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)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.419 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→