MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Alectinib in children and adolescents with solid or CNS tumors harboring ALK-fusions: A data update from the iMATRIX alectinib phase I/II open-label, multi-center study.

2025· article· en· W4410804997 on OpenAlexaff
François Doz, Michela Casanova, Kyung-Nam Koh, Karsten Nysom, Adela Cañete, Hyoung Jin Kang, Matthias A. Karajannis, Darren Hargrave, Nadège Corradini, Yeming Wu, Huanmin Wang, David S. Ziegler, Nicolas Prud'homme, Carla Manzitti, Quentin Campbell-Hewson, Carolina Sturm, Tao Xu, Dhruvitkumar S. Sutaria, Francis Mussai, Amar Gajjar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersF. Hoffmann-La Roche
KeywordsAlectinibMedicineOpen labelSolid tumorCrizotinibALK inhibitorOncologyInternal medicineClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10004 Background: Alectinib is a next generation oral inhibitor of ALK-fusion proteins, being investigated in children and adolescents with ALK-fusion bearing tumors at diagnosis or relapse. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data from the iMATRIX Alectinib phase I-II study (NCT04774718). Methods: Patients, less than 18 years of age, with ALK fusion-positive solid or CNS tumors for whom prior treatment had proven to be ineffective or for whom there was no satisfactory treatment available were eligible. Patients were recruited to Part 1 to confirm the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to monitor drug pharmacokinetics. Investigators reported Best Overall Response according to RANO (CNS tumors) or RECIST v1.1 (solid tumors) criteria with a data cut off of July 2024. Results: In total 22 patients with a median age of 8 years were enrolled. Fourteen patients were diagnosed with solid tumors: inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (n = 9), renal cell carcinoma (n = 2), mesothelioma (n = 1), nephroblastoma (n = 1), and atypical melanocytic tumor (n = 1). Six patients were diagnosed with CNS tumors: high grade glioma (n = 5) and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (n = 1). Two patients had ineligible conditions: histiocytosis (n = 1) and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (n = 1). Among the 22 patients, 14 had not received prior systemic therapy. ALK fusion partners were EML4 and CLTC in 3 patients, TPM3 and KIF5C in 2 patients, and DCTN1, FN1, KIF5B, NPM, PPP1CB, STRN, CLIP1, RANBP2, ZEB2, PLEKHA7, CDC42BPB and HNRNPA3 in 1 patient each. In the 21 safety evaluable patients, only 1 DLT of Grade 3 increased alanine aminotransferase, in the context of multiple viral infections, was reported. The DLT resolved after treatment interruption and Alectinib was restarted at a reduced dose level, and then tolerated well. Eighteen patients (86%) experienced at least one Adverse Event (AE) reported as related to Alectinib, the majority being of Grade 1 and 2 severity. Grade ≥ 3 AEs related to alectinib were reported for 5 patients (23.8%) and there were 2 patients with serious AEs related to Alectinib. There were no new safety signals detected. Investigator reported Best Overall Response rate in 16 patients was 87.5%; (14 PRs) and 2 patients were reported to have stable disease. A partial response was observed in 5/5 evaluable patients with CNS tumors and in 9/11 evaluable patients with solid tumours. Six patients were excluded from the efficacy analysis due to ineligible tumor type (n = 2), not dosed (n = 1), no measurable disease according to RANO criteria (n = 1) or lack of response assessment by the analysis cut-off date (n = 2). Conclusions: Alectinib continues to have a favourable safety profile in pediatric patients. Despite this being a very challenging population to treat, clinical efficacy results are transformational with the majority of patients experiencing a tumor response. Clinical trial information: NCT04774718 .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.405 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→