MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study of the Bria-IMT regimen and CPI vs physicians' choice in advanced metastatic breast cancer (BRIA-ABC).

2024· article· en· W4399319932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara A. Hurvitz, Saranya Chumsri, Adam Brufsky, Chaitali Nangia, Giuseppe Del Priore, Massimo Cristofanilli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic breast cancerRegimenBreast cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS1137 Background: BriaCell (BC) human immortalized cell lines have been engineered to trigger robust immune responses and deliver efficacy through diverse mechanisms, including adaptive (involving T-cells) and innate responses (dendritic and NK cells). BC can match patients’ HLA antigens for optimal effectiveness. BC works by several mechanisms, including direct antigen presentation and activation of CD4+ T-cells. When combined with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, the BC regimen has demonstrated clinical benefit in 54 heavily treated MBCs. Most pts whose disease has progressed after checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy showed similar or improved PFS compared to the patient's last treatment regimen. Disease control after prior antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) has been observed in 40% of patients, and clinical benefit has been seen in 5/7 patients with untreated intracranial metastases. CD8+ Immuno PET shows an increase in CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes suggesting systemic activation and infiltration into lymphoid organs and metastatic sites. Sequencing of CPI with BC and the latest phase 3 formulation are associated with improved clinical outcomes, including OS (median 13.4 months), PFS, and CBR, which are reflected in the design of this ongoing pivotal registration enabling Phase 3 study [doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p3-07-12]. Methods: Multicenter randomized, open label Bria-IMT regimen (with SV-BR-1-GM cells) plus CPI vs Treatment of Physicians' Choice (TPC) in MBCs with no approved curative therapies available. ECOG <2 allowed with no limit on prior therapies. Eligibility encompasses all MBC subtypes including pts with CNS metastases. Prior immune therapy is allowed if administered more than 21 days before the first cycle of Bria-IMT; treatments within 21 days preclude participation. Initial randomization will be 1:1:1 to the Bria-IMT regimen + CPI (combination), TPC, and the Bria-IMT regimen alone (monotherapy). There will be 100 sites across the US, Canada, and ex-NA for 404 total evaluable pts. The Bria-IMT regimen includes: Day -2 Cyclophosphamide 300mg/m2, Day 0 20 million irradiated SV-BR-1-GM cells intradermally, and 0.1mcg peg α interferon intra-dermally (Day 2 or 3) into each Bria-IMT inoculation site. After the first 150 pts have enrolled, the monotherapy arm will be discontinued. Bria regimen + CPI arms treatment cycles occur q3w. CPI infusion is given every cycle between Day –3 to Day 3 TPC cycle details will be according to the site's SOC. Imaging assessment will be q6w x2 then q8w. The primary endpoint is overall survival with an interim analysis at 144 events targeting a hazard ratio of 0.6. Key secondary endpoints will include PFS, ORR, CBR, CNS event free survival, and TWiST (time without symptoms or toxicities). Safety analysis will be ongoing. Patient-reported outcomes will be incorporated to assess subjective treatment effects. Clinical trial information: NCT06072612 .

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207