Neratinib Alone or in Combination with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors with or without Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitors in Patients with Fibrolamellar Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Fibrolamellar carcinoma (FLC) displays upregulation of several oncogenes, including HER2, and multiple immune-suppressive mechanisms. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor neratinib as monotherapy (SUMMIT phase 2 basket study) or with immune checkpoint and/or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (compassionate-use program) in patients with FLC. Methods: Patients received neratinib 240 mg/day orally in SUMMIT, or as doublet or triplet combinations with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks, nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks, everolimus 7.5 mg/day orally, or sunitinib 37.5 mg/day orally under compassionate use. The primary endpoint in SUMMIT was objective response rate; safety was a secondary endpoint. Results: Fifteen patients with FLC received neratinib monotherapy in SUMMIT. The objective response rate was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0–21.8) and the disease control rate was 13.3% (95% CI: 1.7–40.5). Upon progression, five had added immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without everolimus or sunitinib. Two additional patients received neratinib-based combinations outside of SUMMIT, for a total of 17 neratinib-treated patients. One patient who received neratinib plus pembrolizumab had a confirmed partial response, one treated with neratinib plus everolimus had stable disease lasting 6 months, and one who received neratinib plus pembrolizumab plus sunitinib had stable disease lasting 16 months. Grade 3/4 adverse events with neratinib monotherapy occurred in 10 (66.7%)/2 (13.3%) patients, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events with neratinib-based combinations were hyperglycemia (n = 1; neratinib plus pembrolizumab), hepatic failure, and anaphylaxis (n = 1 each, neratinib plus pembrolizumab plus everolimus). There were no grade 4 adverse events with combination therapy. Conclusion: In patients with FLC, single-agent neratinib had limited efficacy, but clinical benefit was observed with neratinib in combination with immunotherapy and/or mTOR-targeted agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".