MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase 1, open-label, first-in-human study of ABBV-969, a dual variable antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2025· article· en· W4410809403 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony W. Tolcher, Tanya B. Dorff, Sumiko Okubo, Linu Abraham, Regina M. Reilly, Claudina Stevenson, Song Wang, Sarah R. Mudd, Samaneh Alaei, Yuemei Wang, David I. Quinn, Fred Saad, John D. Powderly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersAbbVie
KeywordsMedicineConjugateAntibody-drug conjugateProstate cancerCastrationAntibodyOrchiectomyProstateOncologyCancerInternal medicineMonoclonal antibodyImmunologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS5111 Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is an incurable disease with high unmet need. Six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of prostate 1 (STEAP1) is highly enriched in > 85% of prostate cancer (PC), 1 and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression is > 100-fold higher in patients (pts) with mCRPC. 2 These are well-established and actionable targets in mCRPC. ABBV-969, a dual variable domain IgG1 drug conjugate, targets STEAP1 and PSMA and includes a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor (Top1i) payload. Based on preclinical data, ABBV-969 is expected to have greater efficacy and wider activity than targeting either antigen alone. We describe a first-in-human study of ABBV-969 in pts with mCRPC. Methods: This phase 1 open-label study (NCT06318273) of ABBV-969 monotherapy evaluates safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy. Eligible pts, ≥ 18 years of age, have mCRPC treated with and progressed on ≥ 1 prior novel hormonal agent for mPC/CRPC and ≥ 1 taxane for PC (or have refused, are intolerant to, or unable to access taxanes). Pts must have a life expectancy > 6 months, serum testosterone levels ≤ 50 ng/dL, ≥ 1 metastatic lesion at baseline, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels ≥ 1.0 ng/mL. Part 1 (dose escalation) of the study will enroll up to ~80 pts and is guided by the Bayesian optimal interval design primarily based on the dose-limiting toxicity rate. Part 2 (dose expansion) will randomize up to 60 pts in 2 (1:1) or 3 (1:1:1) dose levels (determined in part 1). Part 1 will enroll pts in US, Israel, Japan, and Australia with Canada, France, and Spain added in part 2. Optimal (recommended phase 2) dose will be determined by the totality of PK, PD, safety, and efficacy data. Pts will receive intravenous ABBV-969 until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or other study discontinuation criteria are met. The study objectives and endpoints are shown in the Table. 1. Xu M, et al. Cancers 2022;14:4034. 2. Sweat SD, et al. Urology 1998;52:637–40. Clinical trial information: NCT06318273 . Objectives and endpoints. Objective Endpoint Primary Safety and tolerability Adverse events and dose-limiting toxicitiesClinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, ECG Secondary Preliminary efficacy Primary ≥ 50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decrease from baseline Secondary Confirmed complete response(CR)/partial response (PR) per RECIST v1.1PSA response durationDuration of response for pts with CR or PROverall survivalProgression-free survival Pharmacokinetic (PK) characterization PK parameters including C max , T max , t 1/2 , and area under the curve using noncompartmental methodsDetermination of antidrug antibodies Dose optimization Recommended phase 2 dose determined using all available information Previously presented at ESMO 2024, FPN: 1660TiP, Raanan Berger et al - reused with permission.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→