MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Intracranial efficacy of sotorasib versus docetaxel in pretreated<i> KRAS</i> G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Practice-informing data from a global, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

2023· article· en· W4379646019 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Marie C. Dingemans, Konstantinos Syrigos, Lorenzo Livi, Astrid Paulus, Sang‐We Kim, Yuanbin Chen, Enriqueta Felip, Frank Griesinger, Kadoaki Ohashi, Gérard Zalcman, Brett Hughes, Jens Benn Sørensen, Normand Blais, Carlos Gil Ferreira, Colin R. Lindsay, Rafał Dziadziuszko, Patrick J. Ward, Cynthia Obiozor, Yang Wang, Solange Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersAmgen
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelOncologyKRASInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialLung cancerBrain metastasisCancerChemotherapyMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA9016 Background: Brain metastases are common (~30%) in patients (pts) with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC and have a negative impact on survival and quality of life (QOL). In the CodeBreaK 200 global, phase 3 RCT, sotorasib was the first oral KRASG12C inhibitor to show improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), with a better toxicity profile and QOL, compared with intravenous docetaxel in pretreated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC. Here we describe the first RCT data evaluating the intracranial (IC) efficacy of sotorasib versus docetaxel from the CodeBreaK 200 study. Methods: Pts with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to sotorasib (960 mg daily; n=171) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks; n=174). Patients with treated, stable (non-progressing) brain metastases were eligible for study. Baseline brain imaging, by contrast enhanced MRI, was performed for all pts at screening. For pts with history of or brain metastasis at baseline, the brain MRI was repeated at every subsequent imaging assessment (every 6 weeks). A post-hoc analysis on IC efficacy (CNS PFS and time to CNS recurrence) was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (mRANO-BM). Systemic response was also assessed by RECIST 1.1. Results: CNS metastases by imaging at baseline were present in 40 pts (23%) in the sotorasib arm and 29 pts (17%) in the docetaxel arm (full analysis set, FAS). With a median follow-up of 20.0 months, the median systemic PFS by RECIST 1.1 in the FAS was 6.1 months versus 4.5 months (HR 0.57 [95% CI: 0.30, 1.07], P=0.045) for sotorasib versus docetaxel, respectively. Time to CNS recurrence in the FAS was 9.6 months with sotorasib versus 5.4 months with docetaxel (HR 0.84 [95% CI: 0.32, 2.19], P=0.37). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 77.5% of pts treated with sotorasib versus 89.7% of pts treated with docetaxel. Conclusions: In the first randomized evaluation of IC activity of any KRASG12C inhibitor, sotorasib demonstrated a reduced risk of progression and trend towards delayed time to CNS recurrence versus docetaxel in patients with pretreated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC who had treated, stable brain metastases. These results suggest IC activity with sotorasib to complement the overall PFS benefit observed with sotorasib versus docetaxel. Clinical trial information: NCT04303780 .

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.450 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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