MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361295263 · doi:10.1186/s13046-023-02649-6

First-in-human phase 1 clinical trial of anti-core 1 O-glycans targeting monoclonal antibody NEO-201 in treatment-refractory solid tumors

2023· article· en· W4361295263 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher B. Cole, Maria Pia Morelli, Massimo Fantini, Markku Miettinen, Patricia Fetsch, Cody J. Peer, William D. Figg, Tyler Yin, Nicole Houston, Ann McCoy, Stanley Lipkowitz, Alexandra S. Zimmer, Miroslava Pavelova, Erin N. Villanueva, Kathryn Trewhitt, B. Brooke Solarz, Marı́a M. Fergusson, Sharon Mavroukakis, Anjum Zaki, Kwong Y. Tsang, Philip M. Arlen, Christina M. Annunziata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsPrecision BioLogic (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaInternal medicineFebrile neutropeniaPharmacokineticsGastroenterologyClinical trialRefractory (planetary science)OncologyToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: NEO201 is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) generated against tumor-associated antigens from patients with colorectal cancer. NEO-201 binds to core 1 or extended core 1 O-glycans expressed by its target cells. Here, we present outcomes from a phase I trial of NEO-201 in patients with advanced solid tumors that have not responded to standard treatments. METHODS: This was a single site, open label 3 + 3 dose escalation clinical trial. NEO-201 was administered intravenously every two weeks in a 28-day cycle at dose level (DL) 1 (1 mg/kg), DL 1.5 (1.5 mg/kg) and DL 2 (2 mg/kg) until dose limiting toxicity (DLT), disease progression, or patient withdrawal. Disease evaluations were conducted after every 2 cycles. The primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of NEO-201. The secondary objective was to assess the antitumor activity by RECIST v1.1. The exploratory objectives assessed pharmacokinetics and the effect of NEO-201 administration on immunologic parameters and their impact on clinical response. RESULTS: Seventeen patients (11 colorectal, 4 pancreatic and 2 breast cancers) were enrolled; 2 patients withdrew after the first dose and were not evaluable for DLT. Twelve of the 15 patients evaluable for safety discontinued due to disease progression and 3 patients discontinued due to DLT (grade 4 febrile neutropenia [1 patient] and prolonged neutropenia [1 patient] at DL 2, and grade 3 prolonged (> 72 h) febrile neutropenia [1 patient] at DL 1.5). A total of 69 doses of NEO-201 were administered (range 1-15, median 4). Common (> 10%) grade 3/4 toxicities occurred as follows: neutropenia (26/69 doses, 17/17 patients), white blood cell decrease (16/69 doses, 12/17 patients), lymphocyte decrease (8/69 doses, 6/17 patients). Thirteen patients were evaluable for disease response; the best response was stable disease (SD) in 4 patients with colorectal cancer. Analysis of soluble factors in serum revealed that a high level of soluble MICA at baseline was correlated with a downregulation of NK cell activation markers and progressive disease. Unexpectedly, flow cytometry showed that NEO-201 also binds to circulating regulatory T cells and reduction of the quantities of these cells was observed especially in patients with SD. CONCLUSIONS: NEO-201 was safe and well tolerated at the MTD of 1.5 mg/kg, with neutropenia being the most common adverse event. Furthermore, a reduction in the percentage of regulatory T cells following NEO-201 treatment supports our ongoing phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficiency of the combination of NEO-201 with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in adults with treatment-resistant solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03476681 . Registered 03/26/2018.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer ResearchSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207