MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of clinical outcomes of stable disease with confirmed tumor reduction and RECIST partial response for tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM).

2024· article· en· W4400272421 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra P. Ikeguchi, Takami Sato, Marcus O. Butler, Richard D. Carvajal, Joseph J. Sacco, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Jessica C. Hassel, Paul Nathan, Josep M. Piulats, Douglas B. Johnson, Jason J. Luke, Enrique Espinosa, Serge Leyvraz, Laura Collins, Ramakrishna Edukulla, Piruntha Thiyagarajah, Omid Hamid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaMetastatic melanomaResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsDiseaseOncologyInternal medicineProgressive diseaseCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9529 Background: Tebentafusp (gp100 x CD3) has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in mUM. Benefit was observed in patients (pts) who achieved a RECIST v1.1 partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and even progressive disease (PD) (Nathan 2021). In Phase (Ph) 1, some melanoma pts had SD with tumor reduction > 10% that was confirmed at ≥ 1 subsequent scan (referred to as minor response, MR). In Ph 2, an analysis of MR was pre-specified as an endpoint and presented here. Methods: 127 HLA-A*02:01+ pts with previously treated mUM received weekly intravenous tebentafusp following intra-pt dose escalation of 20mcg Week 1, 30mcg Week 2 and 68mcg Week 3+ (NCT02570308; Carvajal 2022). Radiologic assessments were performed every 8 weeks until week 40, then q12 weeks. Tumor assessment was evaluated by a blinded independent review committee per RECISTv1.1. MR was prospectively defined as RECISTv1.1 best response of SD with reduction in sum of target lesions of -10% to -29% and which was confirmed ≥ 4 weeks later. ctDNA levels were assessed using a targeted mPCR-NGS assay for mutations in 15 genes including mUM oncogenes GNAQ, GNA11, SF3B1, CYSLTR2, PLCB4 and EIF1AX (Natera). Molecular response was defined as ≥ 0.5 log [68%] ctDNA reduction by week 9. Data cut off: Oct 2022. Median duration of follow-up was 46 months. Results: Of 127 pts, the clinical benefit rate of PR + SD was 50% (64/127). 25% (32/127) had any tumor reduction that was confirmed on ≥ 1 subsequent scan, including 6 PR (ORR 5%) and 26 SD (20%). 8/26 SD (6% of 127) met the pre-defined threshold for MR, most (5/8) had >20% reduction. The median duration of response for PR and MR were 8.7 months and 10.6 months, respectively. The estimated percent of pts with PR and MR remaining in response at Month 20 were 20% and 33%, respectively. 3/6 PR pts were alive ≥ 3 years vs 3/8. 58% of PR + SD pts with evaluable ctDNA had a molecular response (26/45), including 2/4 PRs and 5/5 MRs. Conclusions: This Ph2 UM study prospectively confirmed that a subset of SD patients had tumor reduction over multiple scans. The frequency of minor response was similar to that of PR and had similar durability, OS and ctDNA molecular response. SD with confirmed tumor reduction is an emerging endpoint for the ImmTAC platform and will be studied in other trials (NCT05549297, NCT04262466). Clinical trial information: NCT02570308 .

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207