MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4361947518 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.c.6530985

Data from Safety and Antitumor Activity of α-PD-L1 Antibody as Monotherapy or in Combination with α-TIM-3 Antibody in Patients with Microsatellite Instability–High/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Tumors

2023· preprint· en· W4361947518 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Hollebecque, Hyun Cheol Chung, Maria J. de Miguel, Antoîne Italiano, Jean‐Pascal Machiels, Chia‐Chi Lin, Neesha C. Dhani, Marc Peeters, Víctor Moreno, Wu‐Chou Su, Kay Hoong Chow, Violeta R. Galvao, Michelle Carlsen, Danni Yu, Anna M. Szpurka, Yumin Zhao, Shelly L. Schmidt, Leena Gandhi, Xiaojian Xu, Yung‐Jue Bang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMicrosatellite instabilityMedicineInternal medicineTolerabilityAntibodyRefractory (planetary science)Adverse effectGastroenterologyCombination therapyOncologyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractPurpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitors show high response rates and durable clinical benefit in microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) tumors. However, 50%–60% do not respond to single-agent anti–programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) antibodies, and approximately 50% of responders relapse within 6–12 months. This phase Ib trial evaluated safety and antitumor activity of anti–PD-L1 antibody LY3300054 monotherapy or in combination with anti–TIM-3 antibody LY3321367 in patients with MSI-H/dMMR advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients ≥18 years without prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy received LY3300054 monotherapy (N = 40) or combination (N = 20); patients with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory tumors received the combination (N = 22). LY3300054 (700 mg) and anti–TIM-3 antibody (cycles 1–2: 1,200 mg, cycle 3 onward: 600 mg) were administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Results: Eighty-two patients were enrolled. Most had colorectal (n = 39, 47.6%) or endometrial (n = 14, 17.1%) tumors. More than 70% of patients in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort had received ≥3 treatment lines. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 22 patients (55.0%) receiving monotherapy, 13 (65.0%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve combination cohort, and 6 (27.3%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort. A total of 2 patients (5.0%) receiving monotherapy and 3 (7.1%) receiving the combination experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs. Objective responses occurred in 13 patients (32.5%) with monotherapy, 9 (45.0%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve combination cohort, and 1 patient (4.5%) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory combination cohort. Conclusions: LY3300054 monotherapy and combined LY3300054/anti–TIM-3 had manageable safety profiles. Both regimens showed promising clinical activity against PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–naïve MSI-H/dMMR tumors. The combination had limited clinical benefit in patients with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–resistant/refractory MSI-H/dMMR tumors.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→