MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390690905 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2302299

Repotrectinib in <i>ROS1</i> Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2024· article· en· W4390690905 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Drilon, D. Ross Camidge, W. Marston Linehan, Sang‐We Kim, Benjamin Solomon, Rafał Dziadziuszko, Benjamin Besse, Kōichi Goto, Adrianus J. de Langen, Jürgen Wolf, Ki Hyeong Lee, Sanjay Popat, Christoph Springfeld, Misako Nagasaka, Enriqueta Felip, Nong Yang, Vamsidhar Velcheti, Shun Lü, Steven Kao, Christophe Dooms, Matthew Krebs, Wenxiu Yao, Muhammad Shaalan Beg, Xiufeng Hu, Denis Moro‐Sibilot, Parneet Cheema, Shanna Stopatschinskaja, Minal Mehta, Denise Trone, Armin Graber, Gregory E. Sims, Yong Yuan, Byoung Chul Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteManchester Biomedical Research CentreBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsROS1MedicineInternal medicineClinical endpointLung cancerConfidence intervalOncologyPhases of clinical researchClinical trialAdenocarcinomaCancerGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion–positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion–positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. In this registrational phase 1–2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion–positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion–positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion–positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion–positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYRepotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion–Positive Lung Cancer 02:17

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations210
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207