MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

1488 A multicenter phase 2 trial of lifileucel plus pembrolizumab in patients with checkpoint inhibitor-naive metastatic NSCLC: updated results

2024· article· en· W4404067466 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Creelan, Kai He, Edward B. Garon, Jason Chesney, Sylvia Lee, Jorgé Nieva, Adrian G. Sacher, Friedrich Graf Finckenstein, Brian Gastman, Jeffrey Chou, Rana Fiaz, Melissa Catlett, Guang Chen, Adam Schoenfeld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabOncologyMedicineInternal medicineComputer scienceImmunotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Resistance to frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) ± chemotherapy presents a challenge in the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy with lifileucel alone demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 21% in patients with refractory metastatic NSCLC previously treated with an ICI. Integration of TIL cell therapy in frontline regimens may improve long-term outcomes in NSCLC. We report updated efficacy and safety results for lifileucel combined with pembrolizumab in patients with ICI-naive metastatic NSCLC. Methods IOV-COM-202 (NCT03645928) is a global, phase 2, multicenter, multicohort, open-label study. Cohort 3A has enrolled patients with ICI-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC with disease progression, ≥1 resectable lesion for lifileucel manufacturing, and ≥1 evaluable lesion (by RECIST v1.1). Patients received nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine), followed by a single lifileucel infusion, and ≤6 doses of high-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2). Pembrolizumab was administered once before lymphodepletion and continued after lifileucel up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were ORR and safety (incidence of grade ≥3 TEAEs). Results As of August 12, 2024, 22 patients had been infused with lifileucel. Patients had a median age of 57 years (range, 30–69) and a median of 1 (range, 0–4) lines of prior systemic therapy. PD-L1 tumor proportion score was <1 in 77.3% (n=17), tumor EGFR status was wild-type (wt) in 63.6% (n=14). Common anatomic sites of tumor resection were lung (45.5%) and lymph node (22.7%). Median lifileucel dose was 22.9×109 cells. At a median follow-up of 25.6 months, the ORR (95% CI) in the EGFR-wt subgroup of interest for further studies was 64.3% (35.1%–87.2%). Median DOR in this subgroup was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 3.7 months–NR). Six responses occurred in 11 patients with EGFR-wt PD-L1–negative disease (54.5%). Five patients had durable and ongoing responses at last follow-up, including 3 patients with PD-L1–negative status (figure 1). For the EGFR-mutation post-TKI (n=8) subgroup, the ORR was 12.5%. TEAEs were consistent with underlying disease and known profiles of pembrolizumab, nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion, and IL-2. Most common grade ≥3 nonhematologic TEAEs were hypoxia (54.5%), febrile neutropenia (45.5%), and hypophosphatemia (31.8%). Conclusions In patients with ICI-naive metastatic NSCLC, lifileucel plus pembrolizumab demonstrated robust antitumor activity and durable responses, including in patients with EGFR-wt PD-L1–negative tumors. No new safety signals were observed with lifileucel plus pembrolizumab. These results support further investigation of lifileucel/ICI combination as part of frontline therapy in metastatic NSCLC. Trial Registration NCT03645928. Ethics Approval This study was approved by the institutional review board at each site and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonization. All patients provided written informed consent.

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)0.002
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→