Efficacy and CNS results from a randomized subset of the phase 2 SAVANNAH study comparing savolitinib (savo) + osimertinib (osi) combination with savo + placebo (PBO).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8513 Background: The MET pathway is a known mediator of EGFR-TKI resistance and represents a therapeutic vulnerability to select MET-TKIs. Savo is an oral, highly selective MET-TKI that, when combined with osi, has the potential to overcome MET-driven resistance after progressive disease (PD) on osi. The Phase 2 SAVANNAH study has demonstrated clinically meaningful activity with the combination of savo + osi in patients (pts) with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) advanced NSCLC and MET overexpression/amplification (NCT03778229). Isolating the efficacy of savo in the use of savo + osi is a key question for this combination. Methods: A subset of SAVANNAH included eligible pts who had EGFRm advanced NSCLC with MET overexpression (IHC 3+ intensity in ≥90% of tumor cells [IHC3+/≥90%]) and/or amplification (≥10 MET gene copies by FISH [FISH10+]) after PD on first-line (1L) osi; asymptomatic stable brain metastases (treated/untreated) were allowed. Pts were randomized 2:1 (double-blind) to savo 300 mg BID + osi 80 mg QD, or savo 300 mg BID + PBO (stratified by investigator [INV] assessed baseline [BL] brain metastases [yes/no]), until INV-assessed PD per RECIST 1.1. Brain imaging occurred at BL and PD; pts with brain metastases were re-imaged at each tumor assessment to PD. Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and progression-free survival (PFS) by BICR and INV; CNS PFS, and presence/absence of CNS lesions at PD by BICR. Results: Overall, 73 pts were randomized (savo + osi n=48; savo + PBO n=25). At BL, median age: 67 vs 65 years, female: 73% vs 64%, White: 73% vs 52% in the savo + osi and savo + PBO arms, respectively. Efficacy outcomes (ORR, DoR, and PFS) were higher with savo + osi than savo + PBO (Table). CNS PFS events by CNS BICR occurred in 5/14 (36% savo + osi) and 2/4 pts (50% savo + PBO). In pts without BL brain metastases, none of the 13 pts (savo + osi) with RECIST PD by BICR had a new CNS lesion; 6/11 pts in the savo + PBO arm developed a new CNS lesion. Conclusions: In EGFRm advanced NSCLC with MET IHC3+/≥90% and/or FISH10+ status after PD on 1L osi, efficacy of savo 300 mg BID + osi was numerically greater than savo + PBO and showed promising CNS activity. To date, this is one of the largest randomized data sets presented evaluating an oral MET-TKI in EGFRm NSCLC. Efficacy findings from SAVANNAH suggest that targeting both EGFR and MET is key and support further investigation of savo + osi and CNS activity in the Phase 3 SAFFRON study. Clinical trial information: NCT03778229 . Assessment Savo + osi (n=48) Savo + placebo (n=25) ORR, % (95% CI) BICR 58 (43, 72) 16 (5, 36) INV 54 (39, 69) 24 (9, 45) DoR, mo, median (95% CI) BICR 11.8 (6.0, NC) 4.5 (2.6, NC) INV 8.0 (4.9, 11.7) 4.2 (2.6, NC) PFS, mo, median (95% CI) BICR 8.3 (5.8, 15.1) 3.6 (1.4, 5.7) INV 7.6 (5.6, 11.0) 2.7 (1.4, 4.1) BICR, blinded independent central review; CI, confidence interval; mo, months; NC, not calculable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".