MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410212347 · doi:10.1177/17588359251332154

Xevinapant plus avelumab in advanced solid tumours, with a dose expansion in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: exploratory biomarker, safety and efficacy analyses from an open-label, nonrandomised phase Ib study

2025· article· en· W4410212347 on OpenAlexaff
Glenwood Goss, Tudor–Eliade Ciuleanu, Rodryg Ramlau, Daniel J. Renouf, Quincy S. Chu, Ewa Kalinka‐Warzocha, Piotr Sawrycki, Jonathan L. Bramson, Brad H. Nelson, Rafael Crabbé, Eric C. LaCasse, Bernard Lo, Daniela A. Sahlender, Philippa Crompton, Franck Brichory, Luke Piggott, Michael Schenker, Rosalyn A. Juergens

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDebiopharm
KeywordsAvelumabMedicineLung cancerTolerabilityInternal medicineOncologyAdverse effectCancerResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsNivolumabToxicityPhases of clinical researchImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Xevinapant, an inhibitor of apoptosis protein (IAP) inhibitor, has shown promising activity in combination with anticancer agents, including radiotherapy, and, in preclinical studies, anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies. This, in part, is due to its ability to restore apoptosis and increase antitumour immunity. Objectives: We report efficacy, safety and exploratory biomarker analyses of xevinapant plus avelumab (anti-PD-L1) in a two-part, open-label, nonrandomised, phase Ib study. Design: Part A assessed patients with advanced solid tumours who received xevinapant (100, 150, 200 or 250 mg/day, with no random allocation, on Days 1–10 and 15–24) in combination with avelumab (10 mg/kg) on Days 1 and 15 in 28-day cycle. Part B assessed patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received xevinapant at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) plus avelumab (maximum 26 cycles). Methods: Part A assessed the safety and tolerability of the combination and established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and RP2D of xevinapant. Part B assessed the antitumour activity of xevinapant at the RP2D combined with avelumab compared with a historical control (avelumab alone). Exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted. Results: In part A ( n = 16), xevinapant 200 mg/day was established as the RP2D with avelumab and the MTD was not reached. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) irrespective of xevinapant dose were nausea and fatigue ( n = 11 (68.8%) each). In part B ( n = 38; four patients received prior anti-PD-(L)1 antibody), the objective response rate (ORR) was 10.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.9–24.8; partial response, n = 4) and the most common TEAE was decreased appetite ( n = 13 (34.2%)). Levels of plasma IL-10, IL-1β, IL-13 and CD8 + T cells increased during the study, and circulating levels of CD4 + T cells and Tregs increased during cycle 1. Macrophage-related gene expression signatures increased in patients with a partial response or stable disease. Low baseline Ki-67 expression in tumour samples correlated with a partial response. Conclusion: The RP2D of xevinapant with avelumab was established; however, the ORR was not superior to the historical control (avelumab alone). The combination had a manageable safety profile in both study parts. Biomarker analyses provide insights into drivers associated with efficacy in patients with NSCLC receiving xevinapant plus avelumab. Trial registration: NCT03270176 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03270176 ). Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 29 August 2017.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized 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 venueTherapeutic Advances in Medical OncologySame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207