MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Type II RAF inhibitor tovorafenib in relapsed/refractory pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG): Reversible decreases in growth velocity in the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 trial.

2024· article· en· W4399281491 on OpenAlexaff
Cassie Kline, Angela J. Waanders, David S. Ziegler, Lindsay Kilburn, Karsten Nysom, Jasper van der Lugt, Tim Hassall, Nicolas U. Gerber, Devorah Segal, Valérie Larouche, Sabine Mueller, Ashley A. Walter, Peter Manley, Lisa McLeod, Daniel Landi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineGliomaOncologyGastroenterologyCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10036 Background: Tovorafenib is an investigational, selective, CNS-penetrant, type II RAF inhibitor. Results from the ongoing FIREFLY-1 (NCT04775485) phase 2 study (1) in BRAF-altered pLGG showed clinically meaningful tumor responses and a manageable safety profile with tovorafenib monotherapy. Decreased growth velocity (GV) was observed; this is an update on changes in GV in skeletally immature children receiving tovorafenib. Methods: A planned safety analysis was completed on August 8, 2023 and included 137 patients (Arm 1: 77 & Arm 2: 60) treated with ≥1 dose of tovorafenib in FIREFLY-1. This report provides additional follow-up on all cases of decreased growth velocity (GV), an adverse event of special interest (AESI), reported to the Sponsor’s global safety database (GSDB) as of January 19, 2024. Results: Decreased GV was reported in 40 (29.2%) of 137 patients; 26 (19%) had GV reduction ≥50% from baseline (BL). Of those with decreased GV, 30 (75.0%) had pre-existing neuromuscular or endocrine comorbidities that may affect normal growth, including 6 (15%) with precocious puberty being treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue, and 9 (22.5%) with BL heights 2 standard deviations above or below average for age and sex. Nineteen of the 40 patients with this AESI had on-treatment bone age assessments; none showed advancement of bone age from BL or premature closure of growth plates. No osteopenia or abnormal fractures were reported. Of the 35 patients with growth hormone (GH) testing, only 2 had signs of GH deficiency (both had optic pathway tumors; 1 had GH deficiency at BL, the other, a new tumor-associated GH deficiency). Post-treatment heights ≥3 months off treatment were reported for 10 of 40 patients who had interrupted or discontinued treatment for any reason (mean follow up: 5.8 months), including 2 (1.5%) permanent discontinuations and 3 (2.2%) interruptions due to decreased GV. All 10 showed post-treatment recovery in annualized GV (AGV) (average on-treatment AGV 1.1 cm/y vs. average post-treatment AGV 8 cm/y), in some cases exceeding expected average AGV for age. One additional 4-year-old boy with on-treatment AGV of 1.2 cm/y had an off-treatment AGV of 12.3 cm/y after 2 months of off-treatment follow-up. Decreased GV was reported to the GSDB for 5 (11.4%) of 44 patients who received above the maximum dose of tovorafenib used in FIREFLY-1 in an ongoing investigator-initiated study. Four of the 5 patients from this study had ≥3 months of off-treatment follow-up reported; all 4 showed evidence of GV recovery. Conclusions: Decreased GV has been observed in patients treated with tovorafenib. Early follow-up data from patients whose treatment was interrupted show consistent evidence for GV recovery and preservation of growth potential on bone age studies. 1. Kilburn LK, et al. Nat Med.2023. Clinical trial information: NCT04775485 .

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.448
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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→