MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post hoc analysis of rashes reported in patients (pts) with <i>BRAF</i> -altered relapsed/refractory (r/r) pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) treated with the type II RAF inhibitor tovorafenib in FIREFLY-1.

2025· article· en· W4410804792 on OpenAlexaff
Olaf Witt, N. Susan, Hyoung Jin Kang, David S. Ziegler, Patricia Baxter, Simon Bailey, Pablo Hernáiz Driever, Sarah Leary, Geoffrey McCowage, Sébastien Perreault, Angela J. Waanders, Daniel Landi, Lindsay Kilburn, Jordan R. Hansford, Dong‐Anh Khuong‐Quang, Karsten Nysom, Ashley Bailey-Torres, Jiaheng Qiu, Lisa McLeod, Jasper van der Lugt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisRefractory (planetary science)Post hocGliomaInternal medicineOncologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10037 Background: Targeted therapies have become a mainstay in the treatment of pLGG. While effective, toxicities, including cutaneous adverse events (AEs), are common. Tovorafenib received accelerated FDA approval in April 2024 for the treatment of BRAF -altered r/r pLGG in pts ≥6 months of age based on FIREFLY-1 (NCT04775485) trial results. Maculopapular rash, dermatitis acneiform, and erythematous rash were the most commonly reported rashes (Kilburn LB, et al. Nat. Med. 2024). An update on the incidence, recurrence, and resolution of rash AEs in pts who received tovorafenib in FIREFLY-1 is provided. Methods: This post hoc analysis included 137 pts with pLGG (arm 1/registrational: 77; arm 2/extension: 60) treated with ≥1 dose of tovorafenib. Treatment-emergent rashes, graded by investigators, were grouped as maculopapular/erythematous/eczematous (M/E/E) or acneiform/pustular (A/P) (May 10, 2024 data cutoff). A rash episode included all rash events occurring over continuous days. A new rash was any subsequent episode occurring a day or more after the prior episode end date. Results: Median duration of tovorafenib treatment was 21.0 months (mos). 93% (128/137) of pts had a treatment-emergent rash. Of those, 59% (76) had only M/E/E rashes, 11% (14), only A/P rashes, and 30% (38), both types. As expected, A/P rashes occurred more often in pts ≥12 years of age (y/a). The rash was graded as G1 in 36% (46), G2 in 50% (64), and G3 in 14% (18) of pts. Most experienced 1 (53% [68]) or 2 (31% [40]) rash episodes. First rash episode median time to onset (TTO) was 0.43 mos, with 47% (60) G1, 41% (52) G2, and 13% (16) G3. First rash episodes resolved for 74% (95/128) of pts within a median of 2.67 mos. Resolution of first rash was more common among pts with M/E/E vs A/P rashes. Among any rash episodes (27% [58/219]) that remained unresolved, final severity was G1 (22% [48/219]) or G2 (5% [10/219]). All G3 rashes resolved. 47% (60) of pts experienced ≥2 rash episodes, of which 82% (49) were the same/lower grade episode. Of the 11 pts with a more severe second episode, 8 (73%) resolved completely. 80% (102) of pts received standard of care (SOC) treatments for rash, primarily topical steroids/antibiotics, oral antihistamines, and emollients. Only 1 (1%) pt had a rash-related tovorafenib discontinuation. 18% (23) of pts had dose interruptions due to rash. 11% (14) of pts had a dose reduction due to rash; of those, 57% (8) required no additional dose reductions due to rash. Conclusions: Rashes were common in pts treated with tovorafenib in FIREFLY-1. They typically occurred early in treatment, most were G1 or G2, resolved within a median of ~3 mos, and were manageable with SOC treatment and/or tovorafenib dose modifications. A/P rashes occurred more frequently in pts ≥12 y/a; there were no other significant trends in rashes experienced between the two age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT04775485 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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 topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207