MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Naxitamab-related adverse events within and across treatment cycles in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) high-risk neuroblastoma.

2024· article· en· W4399304690 on OpenAlexaff
Jaume Mora, Godfrey Chi Fung Chan, Daniel A. Morgenstern, Loredana Amoroso, Karsten Nysom, Joerg Faber, Arthur Wingerter, Melissa Bear, Alba Rubio‐San‐Simón, James Eldridge, Karen Tornøe, Maria Düring, Brian H. Kushner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersY-mAbs Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)Adverse effectInternal medicineNeuroblastomaOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10032 Background: Anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies, including naxitamab, for the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB) are associated with adverse events (AEs), though few studies have characterized their frequency and patterns of presentation. A practical understanding of AEs can help clinicians expect and manage those requiring intervention. In this post hoc analysis, we report the frequency and severity of naxitamab-related AEs across infusions and treatment cycles, based on data from a prespecified interim analysis of Trial 201. Methods: Trial 201 (phase 2, NCT03363373) is investigating naxitamab plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in patients with R/R HRNB with residual disease in bone/bone marrow only. Patients with soft tissue or actively progressing disease were excluded. Naxitamab was infused at 3 mg/kg/dose IV on Days (D) 1/3/5 with GM-CSF administered SC on Days -4 to 5 (monthly cycles [C]). Patients (N=74) were evaluated for safety (CTCAE v4.0), with frequency defined as % of patients reporting >1 events. Frequency of AEs of Grade ≥3 were evaluated for C1-C5. Results: Most (81%) naxitamab-related AEs were Grade 1 or 2. Grade ≥3 AEs reported in ≥10% of patients were hypotension (60% of patients), pain (54%), urticaria (19%), bronchospasm (18%), and abdominal pain (16%). The frequency of related hypotension Grade ≥3 (Grade 4, n=3) decreased across cycles, from C1 (47%) to C5 (33%) and across infusions, from C1D1 (43%) to C1D3 (18%) and C1D5 (11%). Similar decreases were seen during C2 to C5. Among patients with Grade ≥3 hypotension, 73% had their first event C1D1, of whom 34% and 31% had their second event C1D3 or C2D1, respectively. The frequency of related pain Grade 3 AEs (all preferred terms with word “pain”) decreased from C1 (53%) to C2 (37%), generally stabilizing thereafter with frequencies consistent across infusions. Most (77%) had their first event C1D1, of whom 82% had a second event C1D3. The frequency of related bronchospasm Grade 3 (no Grade 4 AEs) was relatively stable around 7% from C1 to C3, decreasing to 4% and 2% in C4 and C5, respectively. Patients generally experienced these events on D1 infusions with few reported D3 or D5. No consistent pattern was seen for Grade 3 urticaria. None of the Grade ≥3 AEs of hypotension, urticaria, pain or bronchospasm resulted in treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: The frequency of naxitamab related Grade ≥3 AEs changed over the course of therapy. Hypotension was most frequent C1D1, decreasing across infusions and cycles. Pain frequency peaked C1 and decreased in subsequent cycles, remaining stable across infusions. Bronchospasm events, though relatively rare, generally occurred D1 and decreased across infusions. The results underline the importance of initial and ongoing monitoring within and across cycles to ensure appropriate and timely management. Clinical trial information: NCT03363373 .

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
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 OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207