MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase Ib study of inavolisib (INAVO) + weekly paclitaxel (wP) in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic (LA/m) incurable solid tumors: Safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and preliminary antitumor activity.

2025· article· en· W4410803724 on OpenAlexaff
Seock-Ah Im, Guzmán Alonso, Irene Moreno, Kristoffer Staal Rohrberg, Valentina Gambardella, Antoine Italiano, Samuel Jun Ming Lim, Sravanthi Cheeti, Peiqing Yu, Aneta Swat, Fabiola Amair-Pinedo, Dejan Juric

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersGenentech
KeywordsMedicinePharmacokineticsPaclitaxelPharmacologyInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1062 Background: wP is commonly used for treating solid tumors as a single agent or in combination with targeted agents. However, it has an unfavorable benefit–risk profile when given with pan-PI3K inhibitors or alpelisib. INAVO, a potent and selective PI3Kα inhibitor that also promotes mutated p110α degradation, was FDA approved in combination with palbociclib + fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+, HER2–), endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancer (BC) following recurrence on/after completing adjuvant endocrine therapy. We report data from INAVO + wP in pts with LA/m solid tumors from a Phase Ib study (CO42800; ISRCTN45319897). Methods: Eligible pts had progressed after standard systemic therapy. In part 1 (dose-escalation phase; 3+3 design), pts with LA/m incurable solid tumors received INAVO 6 mg/9 mg orally daily (PO QD) + wP (80 mg/m 2 ). In part 2 (dose-expansion phase), pts with LA/m incurable PIK3CA -mutated solid tumors (triple-negative BC [TNBC]; HR+, HER2– BC; others) received INAVO 9 mg PO QD (recommended dose from part 1) + wP. Primary endpoint: Safety/tolerability in parts 1 and 2. Secondary endpoints: Preliminary antitumor activity in part 2 (only TNBC and HR+, HER2– BC data are available); PK in parts 1 and 2. Results: Of 66 pts enrolled (parts 1 and 2), four received no treatment and eight were still on treatment at clinical cutoff (Oct 11, 2024). Reasons for study discontinuation were per protocol study completion (56.1%), death (16.7%), pt withdrawal (9.1%), loss to follow-up (1.5%), and other (4.5%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities. In safety-evaluable pts (n = 62), grade 3, 4, and 5 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59.7%, 3.2%, and 0% of pts, respectively. One pt discontinued INAVO due to AEs; INAVO dose modifications (reduction/interruption) due to AEs occurred in 61.3% of pts. The most common AEs ( > 10% of pts) were diarrhea (61.3%), hyperglycemia (51.6%), and anemia (45.2%). Neutropenia (24.2%) and diarrhea (8.1%) were the most common grade 3–4 AEs. Serious AEs occurred in 30.6% of pts (mostly single AEs in individual pts, and unrelated to study treatment).In part 2, confirmed overall response rate in pts with TNBC (n = 20) was 50.0% and in pts with HR+, HER2– BC (n = 19) it was 36.8%. Median duration of confirmed response was 7.4 mo (95% confidence interval 5.2, 11.5) and 12.8 mo (3.7, not evaluable), respectively; median progression-free survival, 7.0 mo (3.5, 9.3) and 7.4 mo (6.2, 14.7). PK of INAVO and wP at Cycle 1, Day 15 were comparable to historic data. Conclusions: In CO42800, INAVO + wP was well tolerated in pts with LA/m solid tumors, including those with a PIK3CA mutation, with no new safety signals or drug–drug interactions observed. Encouraging preliminary antitumor activity shown in pts with HR+, HER2– BC or TNBC supports further investigation. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN45319897 .

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.440 · 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 venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207