A Phase 1/2 Study of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus in Recurrent and Refractory Pediatric and Young Adult Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Developing targeted therapies with manageable toxicities remains a high priority for pediatric cancer. We sought to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and evaluate the antitumor activity of lenvatinib+everolimus in children/young adults with select recurrent/refractory solid tumors. METHODS: Patients 2-21 years old were eligible. Phase 1 used a rolling-six design. Phase 2 was limited to patients with Ewing sarcoma (EWS), rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), or high-grade glioma (HGG), and ≤2 prior VEGF/VEGFR-targeted therapies. Primary endpoints included the determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD), RP2D, safety/toxicity (Phase 1), and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 (RANO for HGG) at Week 16 (Phase 2). RESULTS: orally once daily. DL1 was declared the MTD/RP2D given dose-limiting toxicities (proteinuria [n = 1]; hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia [n = 1]) observed in two of 12 patients treated at DL1. In Phase 2, 41 patients (EWS, n = 10; RMS, n = 20; HGG, n = 11) were treated with the RP2D. Two patients with RMS experienced partial response by Week 16. No other objective responses were observed. Two patients with EWS experienced prolonged disease control (≥23 weeks). No new safety signals were identified. The safety profile was similar to those of treated adults with renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib+everolimus has a manageable safety profile in this pediatric population. Despite unmet efficacy endpoints, the antitumor activity observed in RMS and EWS may warrant further study in select pediatric solid tumors. GOV NUMBER: NCT03245151.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".