MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase 1 trial of the anti-LAG3 antibody favezelimab plus pembrolizumab in advanced gastric cancer.

2023· article· en· W4318904300 on OpenAlexaff
Sun Young Rha, Wilson H. Miller, Seock‐Ah Im, Iwona Ługowska, Martin Wermke, Daisuke Kotani, Todd M. Bauer, Atsuo Takashima, John Palcza, Marya Chaney, Konstantin Dobrenkov, Elena Garralda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabTolerabilityInternal medicineCancerClinical endpointAdverse effectClinical trialOncologyDiscontinuationImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

394 Background: In the dose-confirmation phase of this multicohort trial (NCT02720068), the anti-LAG-3 antibody favezelimab had a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors, confirming preliminary RP2D. Here we present results on the safety of favezelimab (fave) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) in all treated pts and efficacy in pts with advanced gastric cancer. Methods: In this phase 1b trial eligible pts aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled into 7 cohorts across 3 tumor types: Cohorts A (3L+ CRC), B (1L/2L CRC), C (PD-1 naïve HNSCC), D (PD-1 refractory HNSCC), E (PD-1 naïve gastric cancer), F (all solid tumors), and G (PD-1 naïve 3L CRC). Pts with gastric cancer in cohort E received either 200 mg fave + 200 mg pembro, or 700 mg fave + 200 mg pembro Q3W up to 35 cycles. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or pt withdrawal. Primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of fave + pembro. Secondary endpoint was ORR per RECIST 1.1 by investigator assessment. Exploratory endpoints were PFS per RECIST 1.1, and OS. Data cutoff date was March 21, 2022. Results: At data cutoff, 397 pts were enrolled: 38 to fave, 368 to fave + pembro including 9 who crossed over from fave alone. Of these, 80 pts had gastric cancer; 50 (62.5%) of which had ≥2 lines of treatment, and 48 (60.0%) had PD-L1 CPS≥ 1. Among 368 pts treated with fave + pembro, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 232 (63.0%) with fave + pembro. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 66 (17.9%) pts with fave + pembro. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. Immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) occurred in 121 (32.9%) pts with fave + pembro. Grade ≥3 immune-mediated AEs occurred in 27 (7.3%) pts with fave + pembro. No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. In pts with gastric cancer, the overall ORR was 11.3% (95% CI, 5.3-20.3 [3.8% CR; 7.5% PR]) with fave + pembro. In 2 arms, higher dose of fave (700mg) showed increased ORR and 12 months PFS rate. The table summarizes antitumor activity in the gastric cancer cohort. Conclusions: Favezelimab alone or in combination with pembrolizumab had an acceptable safety profile. The combination therapy showed antitumor activity in line with other checkpoint inhibitors in advanced gastric cancer though higher antitumor activity was seen in PDL1 CPS≥ 1 tumors, particularly at higher dose. Clinical trial information: NCT02720068 . [Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207