MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of improvement following initial response in patients treated with naxitamab for relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma.

2024· article· en· W4399304747 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, 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)NeuroblastomaOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10033 Background: Treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB), the most common extracranial solid tumor in pediatric patients, is associated with suboptimal efficacy outcomes. While monitoring responses to naxitamab and other anti-GD2 monoclonal antibodies is essential, there is limited evidence on the timing and magnitude of improved responses following first assessment. Here, we report the patterns of improvement following the initial response to naxitamab therapy, based on the results of 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 refractory/relapsed HRNB with residual disease in bone and/or bone marrow (BM) only. “Refractory” and “relapsed” disease comprised those with an incomplete response (partial response [PR], minor response [MR], or stable disease [SD]) per International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC) to induction therapy or to treatment for actively progressing or relapsed disease, respectively. Patients with soft tissue or actively progressing disease were excluded. Naxitamab was infused at 3 mg/kg/dose IV on Days 1/3/5 with GM-CSF administered SC on Days -4 to 5 (monthly cycles [C]). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), comprising those with a complete response (CR) or PR per INRC. Response assessments occurred between C2 and C3 and at prespecified timepoints thereafter. Results: The ORR in Trial 201 was 50% (26/52). At first assessment, the ORR was 37% (n=19), with 14 patients achieving CR. An additional 6/26 patients (23%) achieved a CR or PR after C3, of whom 4 went from MR to CR, and 2 from SD to PR. (One patient whose disease was not evaluable at first assessment and who later had a PR was included in the ORR but excluded from this response improvement analysis.) In addition to the 6 patients who achieved a CR or PR after C3, 2 patients with PR at initial assessment later achieved a CR, and 1 patient with initial SD achieved MR, totaling 9 patients with improved post-C3 responses, or 17% of the overall efficacy population. Among those with baseline disease in bone, post-C3 responses in the bone compartment improved in 6/50 patients (12%). Of these 6 patients, 5 had initial SD in bone and achieved a post-C3 CR or PR. Post-C3 responses in the BM compartment improved in 6/23 patients (26%) with baseline BM disease, of whom 5 had initial SD in BM and achieved a post-C3 CR. Naxitamab safety (N=74) has been reported previously. Conclusions: A considerable proportion (23%) of patients achieved a CR or PR only after C3. Among these patients, most had initial SD within specific bone or BM compartments before achieving a post-C3 CR/PR. Taken together, the results support the rationale for continued treatment of patients not achieving CR/PR at first assessment. 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207