MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract CT157: Phase 1 dose-escalation study of linclatamig, a LY6G6D×CD3 T cell-engaging bispecific antibody, in patients with colorectal cancer

2025· article· en· W4409821972 on OpenAlexaff
Marwan Fakih, Jayesh Desai, Iosune Baraibar, Ignacio Melero, David R. Spigel, Eric X. Chen, Ben Markman, Stephanie Hilz, Zao Li, Pranay Dogra, Andrew G. Polson, Douglas D. Leipold, Wei Zou, Mengsong Li, Luciana Molinero, Simon Heidegger, Víctor Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBispecific antibodyMedicineColorectal cancerAntibodyOncologyInternal medicineCancerCancer researchMonoclonal antibodyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Lymphocyte antigen 6 complex locus G6D (LY6G6D) is a promising target in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) due to its differentiated expression in tumor vs. normal tissues, and higher prevalence in microsatellite-stable CRC. Linclatamig (or BLYG8824A) is a humanized, IgG1, LY6G6D × CD3 T cell-engaging bispecific antibody (TCB), that binds to LY6G6D and CD3+ T cells, forming an immunologic synapse to facilitate T cell-mediated killing of LY6G6D+ cells. This study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), biomarkers, and anti-tumor activity of linclatamig in patients (pts) with LY6G6D+ mCRC. Method: Pts aged ≥18 years with locally advanced or metastatic LY6G6D+ CRC refractory to established therapies, measurable disease by RECIST v1.1 and ECOG 0/1 were enrolled. Escalating doses of intravenous linclatamig were administered in 21-day cycles, beginning with a step-up dose on Cycle 1, Day 1 (C1D1), followed by a (higher) target dose on C1D8 and on D1 of every cycle (C2D1 onward). Results: Pts (n=46) (prior therapy: median 4 lines; range 2-11) received linclatamig (median 3 cycles; range 1-37) at step-up doses 0.2-180 mg and target doses 0.6-1500 mg across 13 dose-escalation cohorts. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities included immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 2 pts at 180 mg step-up dose, and respiratory distress in the context of CRS and tumor flare in 1 pt at 100 mg step-up dose. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) of any grade (Gr) and irrespective of causality were CRS (94%), anemia (48%), diarrhea (50%), fatigue (50%), dry skin (37%), and rash maculopapular (30%). Most frequent treatment-related Gr ≥3 toxicities were reduced lymphocyte count (13%), diarrhea (11%), and anemia (9%). CRS, mainly Gr 1/2, occurred at step-up C1D1 doses ≥5.4 mg and was mostly limited to C1. Skin-related AEs (74%) including alopecia were reported, consistent with LY6G6D expression in hair follicle bulbs. PK data indicated dose proportionality and faster-than-typical IgG1 clearance. Anti-tumor activity was limited, with 1 confirmed and 2 unconfirmed partial responses. Increased blood levels of IFNg, IL6, and T cell activation supported the mechanism of action. Tumor RNA of responders showed CD8B and activated NK cell enrichment, whereas tumors of pts with disease progression had more fibroblasts, TGFb, myeloid inflammation signatures, and KRAS signaling. Conclusion: This first-in-human study (NCT04468607) targeting LY6G6D in mCRC pts demonstrated a tolerable safety profile for linclatamig up to 1500 mg. Step-up dosing mitigated CRS severity, although skin toxicities indicated possible on-target/off-tumor effects. Limited anti-tumor activity of linclatamig was observed in pts with heavily pre-treated mCRC. Citation Format: Marwan Fakih, Jayesh Desai, Iosune Baraibar, Ignacio Melero, David Spigel, Eric Chen, Ben Markman, Arshdeep Pooni, Amy A. Lo, Rosanna S. Kwok, Stephanie Hilz, Zao Li, Pranay Dogra, Neha N. Shah, Andrew G. Polson, Douglas Leipold, Wei Zou, Mengsong Li, Luciana Molinero, Simon Heidegger, Victor Moreno. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of linclatamig, a LY6G6D×CD3 T cell-engaging bispecific antibody, in patients with colorectal cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT157.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research→French-language works237,207→