MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ONITT: A phase I study of nanoliposomal irinotecan with talazoparib or temozolomide in children and young adults with recurrent or refractory solid tumors.

2025· article· en· W4410805272 on OpenAlexaff
Sara M. Federico, Daniel A. Morgenstern, Sarah Cohen‐Gogo, Clinton F. Stewart, Haitao Pan, Jessica Gartrell, Sara Helmig, Allison Pribnow, Teresa Santiago, Zachary Abramson, Kris Ann P. Schultz, Jennie Haunani Foster, Victor M. Santana, Alberto S. Pappo, Elizabeth A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanTemozolomideRefractory (planetary science)Solid tumorOncologyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchCancerChemotherapyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10007 Background: Talazoparib (TAL), a potent PARP inhibitor, demonstrated preclinical activity in Ewing sarcoma when combined with irinotecan (IRN) and temozolomide (TMZ). A phase I study (BMNIRN, NCT02392793) showed clinical benefit of TAL + IRN + TMZ; but dose escalation was limited due to hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity. We therefore evaluated, for the first time in children, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) in combination with either TAL or TMZ. Methods: Patients (pts) aged 1-30 with recurrent or refractory solid tumors were eligible to receive nal-IRI + TAL (Arm A) or nal-IRI + TMZ (Arm B) using a Bayesian keyboard design. Nal-IRI dosage was escalated with fixed TAL and TMZ doses. Each cycle was 21 days. Maximum tolerated dosage(s) (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dosage(s) (RP2D) were determined. Nal-IRI and TAL plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) were evaluated. Toxicities were assessed using CTCAE v.5 and responses were evaluated by RECIST 1.1. UGT1A1 polymorphisms and serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) samples were evaluated. Results: Forty-six pts enrolled at 5 sites. The first 9 (5 Arm A; 4 Arm B) received nal-IRI days 1, 8. Four pts had dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), so day 8 nal-IRI was removed (Amend 1). After Amend 1, 37 pts (23 male; median age 14 years, range 1-23) enrolled (19 Arm A; 18 Arm B). The most common diagnosis was Ewing sarcoma (n = 16, 35%). Table 1 summarizes DLTs in Cycle 1 and response. The most common serious adverse events included febrile neutropenia (12 Arm A; 2 Arm B), colitis (4 Arm A; 2 Arm B), vomiting (4 Arm A), and diarrhea (3 Arm A). Confirmed responses were seen in five Arm A (1 CR, 4 PR) and five Arm B (1 CR, 4 PR) pts with Ewing sarcoma, CIC-DUX4 sarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. Seven pts (5 Arm A; 2 Arm B) had stable disease. Results of PK, UGT1A1 and ctDNA will be presented. Conclusions: The MTDs were nal-IRI 160mg/m 2 plus TAL (Arm A) and nal-IRI 200mg/m 2 plus TMZ (Arm B). The RP2Ds are pending FDA review. These regimens are feasible with evidence of anti-tumor activity and warrant further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT04901702 . Dose level Nal-IRImg/m 2 IV Arm ANal-IRI + TAL(po, 600mcg/m 2 /dose)Days (D) # of pts Arm BNal-IRI + TMZ(po, 100mg/m 2 )Days (D) # of pts DLT Cycle 1 (# of pts) Confirmed Response(CR, PR, SD, PD) 1 120 D 1: nal-IRI + TAL divided BIDD 2-6: TAL daily 7 D 1: nal-IRI + TMZD 2-5: TMZ daily 3 Arm A: 1 pt - neutropenia (1) Arm A: CR (1), SD (1), PD (2)Arm B: PR (1), SD (1), PD (1) 2 160 D 1: nal-IRI + TAL divided BIDD 2-6: TAL daily 10 D 1: nal-IRI + TMZD 2-5: TMZ daily 3 Arm A: 3 pts - anemia (1), thrombocytopenia (1), sepsis (1), colitis (1) Arm A: PR (3), SD (4), PD (3)Arm B: PR (1), PD (1) 3 200 D 1: nal-IRI + TAL divided BIDD 2-6: TAL daily 2 D 1: nal-IRI + TMZD 2-5: TMZ daily 12 Arm A: 2 pts – abd pain (1), thrombocytopenia (1), neutropenia (1), diarrhea (1)Arm B: 3 pts – nausea (1), neutropenia (1), sepsis (1), thrombocytopenia (1) Arm A: PR (1)Arm B: CR (1), PR (2), SD (1), PD (6)

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207