MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase I/II study of the safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal IMNN-001 in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) of paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients newly diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC): Updated survival analysis from OVATION-2 trial.

2025· article· en· W4410813910 on OpenAlexaff
Premal H. Thaker, Debra L. Richardson, Andrea R. Hagemann, Melanie Bergman, Bhavana Pothuri, Stephen DePasquale, Jennifer Scalici, Amy Bregar, Christopher J. Darus, Karen Finkelstein, Charles A. Leath, Maria C. Bell, David Warshal, Richy Agajanian, Megan D. Indermaur, Alberto A. Mendivil, Diane Provencher, Lauren Musso, Lee‐Jen Wei, William H. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinPaclitaxelChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchOvaryCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5516 Background: OVATION-2 (NCT03393884) is a randomized, controlled phase I/II study evaluating IMNN-001 in newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. The study’s purpose was to assess safety and efficacy of IMNN-001, an interleukin-12 (IL-12) gene therapy in combination with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to NACT alone or NACT +IMNN-001. Carboplatin/paclitaxel IV was administered every 21 days for 3 cycles before and after interval debulking surgery (IDS) in the control arm, and concurrently with intraperitoneal IMNN-001 given weekly for 8 weeks prior to and for 9 weeks after IDS in the experimental arm. PFS was the primary endpoint with secondaries of OS, chemotherapy response score (CRS), surgical response score (SRS) and overall response rate (ORR). Hazard ratios are reported for PFS and OS as the study was not powered for statistical significance. Additional statistical methods quantified Totality of Evidence (ToE, Wang et al 2023, Claggett 2022) by considering PFS and OS outcomes simultaneously. Data lock was June 2024, with OS updated with data through November 2024. Results: 112 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up 31 months. Stage IV disease (31.0% vs 22.2%) and ECOG PS≥1 (48.3% vs 35.2%) were more common in the experimental arm. PARPi maintenance was less frequent in the experimental arm (32.8% vs 44.4%) despite balanced HRD status. IMNN-001 was well-tolerated with common adverse events (AEs) primarily including abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. There was no report of cytokine release syndrome or elevated risk of immune-related adverse events. Median PFS was 14.9 vs 11.9 months (HR:0.79, 95% CI: 0.51-1.23), and median OS was 46.0 vs 33.0 months (HR:0.69, 95% CI: 0.4-1.19) favoring the experimental arm. Rates of CRS with CRS3 outcome (complete or near complete response) and SRS R0 Section outcome were higher in the experimental arm; ORR was similar. In investigator choice PARPi subgroups, median PFS was 33.8 vs 22.1 months favoring the experimental arm (HR:0.79, 95% CI: 0.51-1.23), median OS was not reached in the experimental arm vs 37.1 months in the control arm (HR:0.38, 95% CI: 0.13-1.06). By simultaneously considering individual patients' progression and death times (ToE), the experimental arm shows 6.5 months improvement (less time lost) compared to the control arm with one-sided p = 0.375. Conclusions: IMNN-001 demonstrated trends towards material improvement in overall survival and acceptable safety in advanced EOC, especially in HRD+ patients. These results are supportive of further development in the upcoming pivotal phase 3 study. Clinical trial information: NCT03393884 .

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→