MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405368058 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-24-0439

Phase 1/2 Study of the Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase 1 Inhibitor Linrodostat Mesylate Combined with Nivolumab or Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Solid Tumors or Hematologic Malignancies

2024· article· en· W4405368058 on OpenAlexaff
Jason J. Luke, Karen A. Gelmon, Lillian L. Siu, Víctor Moreno, Jayesh Desai, Carlos Gomez‐Roca, Matteo S. Carlino, Russell K. Pachynski, Rasha Cosman, Quincy S. Chu, Silvia Damian, Giuseppe Curigliano, Rachel Tam, Xianling Wang, Chandrika Jeyamohan, Lily Wang, Li Zhu, Julia Santucci-Pereira, Danielle Greenawalt, Josep Tabernero

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNivolumabIpilimumabMedicinePharmacodynamicsAdverse effectMesylateInternal medicinePharmacologyOncologyPharmacokineticsMelanomaCancerImmunotherapyCancer researchChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and biomarkers of linrodostat mesylate, a selective, oral indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 inhibitor combined with nivolumab ± ipilimumab in advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase 1/2 study, patients received once-daily linrodostat [part 1 (escalation), 25-400 mg; part 2 (expansion), 100 or 200 mg] plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks) or triplet therapy (part 3, linrodostat 20-100 mg once daily; nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks; ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks or every 8 weeks). Endpoints included safety and efficacy (coprimary; parts 2 and 3), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, biomarkers, and efficacy (part 1). RESULTS: A total of 55, 494, and 41 patients were enrolled in parts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Linrodostat exposures exceeded predicted therapeutic target concentrations starting at 50 mg. Rates of grade 3/4 adverse events were 50.1% to 63.4%. The maximum tolerated linrodostat dose was 200 mg; dose-limiting toxicities were primarily immune-related. Responses were observed across different cohorts, study parts, and tumor types, particularly in immunotherapy-naïve patients. Kynurenine decreased with linrodostat + nivolumab regardless of response. In contrast, IFN-γ gene expression signature was associated with response; in nonmelanoma patients, a composite of low tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase gene expression plus high IFN-γ signature was associated with response. CONCLUSIONS: Linrodostat + nivolumab ± ipilimumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile. Kynurenine changes supported indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 pathway inhibition but did not correlate with response. A composite biomarker of low tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase expression plus high IFN-γ gene expression may predict response to linrodostat + nivolumab. See related commentary by Zang and Dorff, p. 2077.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207