A phase Ib/II trial of capmatinib plus spartalizumab vs. spartalizumab alone in patients with pretreated hepatocellular carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & aims: This phase Ib/II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of capmatinib in combination with spartalizumab or spartalizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: single-agent arms using a Bayesian logistic regression model (phase II). Results: 10% in the spartalizumab arm. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs, ≥20%) were nausea (37.5%), asthenia and vomiting (28.1% each), diarrhoea, pyrexia, and decreased appetite (25.0% each) in the combination arm; TRAEs ≥10% were pruritus (23.3%), and rash (10.0%) in the spartalizumab-alone arm. Conclusion: Capmatinib at 400 mg bid plus spartalizumab 300 mg q3w was established as the RP2D, with manageable toxicities and no significant safety signals, but the combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. Impact and implications: Simultaneous targeting of MET and programmed cell death protein 1 may provide synergistic clinical benefit in patients with advanced HCC. This is the first trial to report a combination of capmatinib (MET inhibitor) and spartalizumab (programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) as second-line treatment after sorafenib for advanced HCC. The combination did not show superior clinical activity compared with spartalizumab single-agent treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had previously been treated with sorafenib. The results indicate that there is a clear need to identify a reliable predictive marker of response for HCC and to identify patients with HCC that would benefit from the combination of checkpoint inhibitor +/- targeted therapy. Clinical trial number: NCT02795429.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".