MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of luveltamab tazevibulin vs investigator’s choice of chemotherapy in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) expressing folate receptor alpha (FRα): The REFRaME-01 (GOG-3086, ENGOT-79ov, and APGOT-OV9) phase 2/3 study.

2024· article· en· W4400272727 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Oaknin, Jung-Yun Lee, David Cibula, Yeh Chen Lee, Russell J. Schilder, Annika Auranen, Bo Gao, David S.P. Tan, Amit M. Oza, Rowan Miller, Vanda Salutari, Giulia Tasca, David M. O’Malley, Bradley J. Monk, Bhavana Pothuri, Lin Lü, Craig Berman, Anne Borgman, R. Wendel Naumann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyOvarian cancerInternal medicineOncologyAlpha (finance)GynecologyCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS5637 Background: The treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer remains a challenge, particularly for tumors with low to moderate expression levels of FRα. Luveltamab tazevibulin (luvelta) is an anti–FRα-targeting antibody-drug conjugate with a stable cleavable linker and a 3-aminophenyl hemiasterlin warhead (DAR=4), which induces cytotoxic and immunologic cell death. Luvelta was designed to treat multiple cancers with a broad range of FRα expression. Luvelta demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, selected for FRα expression level of ≥25% at any intensity (tumor proportion score [TPS]). In PROC, this cutoff represents an estimated 80% of patients (pts). In a phase 1 study of luvelta in relapsed ovarian cancer, the overall response rate (ORR) was 37.5% with a median duration of response (DOR) of 5.5 months and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.1 months. ORR was higher at 5.2 mg/kg compared with 4.3 mg/kg (43.8% vs 31.3%). The safety profile was manageable, with the most common grade ≥3 adverse events consisting of neutropenia, arthralgia, and anemia (Oaknin et al. J Clin Oncol 2023;41[16 suppl]:5508). These results support further investigation in pts with PROC whose tumors have a broad range of FRα expression. Herein, we describe a phase 2/3 pivotal study (REFRaME-01)of luvelta in this pt population. Methods: This randomized, global, open-label, 2-part phase 2/3 pivotal study has been designed to assess the efficacy and safety of luvelta vs investigator’s choice (IC) chemotherapy in pts with recurrent PROC expressing FRα (NCT05870748). Eligible pts are adults (≥18 years) with relapsed PROC, 1–3 prior lines of therapy (which must include bevacizumab), measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and TPS for FRα expression ≥25% using Ventana validated IHC assay. Part 1 (phase 2) consists of a luvelta dose-optimization stage in which pts are randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) luvelta every 3 weeks (Q3W) at 4.3 mg/kg or IV luvelta Q3W at 5.2 mg/kg with prophylactic G-CSF for 2 cycles followed by 4.3 mg/kg luvelta from cycle 3 onward. Part 1 data will be used to select the optimal dosing regimen. In part 2 (phase 3) ~550 pts will be enrolled and randomized 1:1 to the optimal luvelta dosing regimen or IC chemotherapy (gemcitabine, paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). Primary endpoints are PFS and ORR, with response evaluated per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, DOR, safety, and quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT05870748 .

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→