MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term efficacy and safety of larotrectinib (laro) in patients (pts) with TRK fusion thyroid carcinoma (TC).

2024· article· en· W4401323850 on OpenAlexaff
Maria E. Cabanillas, Marcia S. Brose, Mohammed Almubarak, Jessica R. Bauman, Michela Casanova, Shivaani Kummar, Se‐Hoon Lee, Serge Leyvraz, Do‐Youn Oh, Lin Shen, Natascha Neu, Vadim Bernard-Gauthier, Chiara Mussi, David S. Hong, Alexander Drilon, Steven G. Waguespack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrk receptorThyroid carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineCancer researchThyroid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6095 Background: NTRK gene fusions are oncogenic drivers in TC. Laro is the first-in-class, highly selective, central nervous system (CNS)-active TRK inhibitor approved for tumor-agnostic use in pts with TRK fusion cancer based on overall response rate (ORR) in pts with various tumor types. Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety in a subset of pts with TRK fusion TC treated with laro. Methods: Pts with TRK fusion TC enrolled in 3 laro clinical trials (NCT02576431, NCT02122913, NCT02637687) were included. Laro was administered at 100 mg twice daily to most pts; 2 pediatric pts received 100 mg/m2. Responses were assessed per independent review committee (IRC) using RECIST v1.1. Results: As of July 20, 2023, 31 pts were enrolled and eligible for efficacy assessment by IRC. Of the 4 pts with known CNS metastases at baseline, 3 received prior cranial radiotherapy (2, 12 and 15 months prior to laro initiation, respectively). Median age was 60 years (range 6-80) and median time since initial cancer diagnosis was 5 years (range 0-46). All NTRK gene fusions were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS). 17 pts (55%) received no prior systemic therapies, 6 (19%) received 2 or more; 22 (71%) received prior radioiodine. ORR was 65% (95% CI 45-81): 3 (10%) complete responses, 17 (55%) partial responses (PR), 5 (16%) stable disease (SD) (4 for >30 months), 4 (13%) progressive disease (PD), and 2 (6%) not evaluable. For pts classified as differentiated TC (DTC; n=24 [77%]), ORR was 79% (95% CI 58-93). For pts classified as anaplastic TC (ATC; n=7 [23%]), ORR was 14% (95% CI 0-58). There were 3 pts with poorly differentiated TC, 1 (3%) classified as DTC (PR) and 2 (6%) as ATC (1 SD for >39 months and 1 PD). Median time to response was 1.9 months (range 1.6-16.2) for all pts. Median duration of response was 40.5 months (95% CI 19.4-not estimable [NE]) at a median follow-up of 39.8 months. Median progression-free survival was 44.0 months (95% CI 16.6-NE) at a median follow-up of 38.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR; 95% CI 48.7-NE) at a median follow-up of 58.0 months; the 48-month OS rate was 72% (95% CI 56-89). Median OS was NR (95% CI 56.3-NE) in DTC and 8.8 months (95% CI 2.6-NE) in ATC. Treatment duration ranged from 1 to 76+ months. At data cutoff, 11 pts had progressed, with 7 continuing treatment post-progression for ≥4 weeks due to continued clinical benefit. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were predominantly Grade 1/2. Grade 3/4 TRAEs were reported in 3 (10%) pts. There were no treatment discontinuations due to TRAEs. Conclusions: Laro continues to demonstrate rapid and durable responses, extended survival, and a favorable safety profile in pts with TRK fusion DTC. Limited single-agent activity was observed in ATC. These results support the wider adoption of NGS panels, which include NTRK gene fusions in pts with advanced TC, to identify those who may benefit from targeted treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT02576431 , NCT02122913 , NCT02637687 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207