MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Randomized study evaluating optimal dose, efficacy and safety of E7386 + lenvatinib versus treatment of physicians’ choice in advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma previously treated with anti–PD-(L)1 immunotherapy.

2025· article· en· W4410820763 on OpenAlexaff
Ramez N. Eskander, Jung‐Yun Lee, Mansoor Raza Mirza, Domenica Lorusso, Helen Mackay, Isabelle Laure Ray-Coquard, Ana Oaknin, Antonio González-Martı́n, Kosei Hasegawa, Bradley R. Corr, Xiaohua Wu, Alexandra Léary, Tianle Hu, Lea Dutta, Chinyere E. Okpara, Jodi A. McKenzie, Vicky Makker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLenvatinibImmunotherapyOncologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialEndometrial cancerGynecologyCarcinomaCancerSorafenibHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS5632 Background: E7386 is an inhibitor of protein-protein interaction between β-catenin and CREB binding protein (CBP). E7386 + lenvatinib has demonstrated manageable safety and promising antitumor activity in the dose-expansion cohort of Study 102 that included patients with advanced endometrial cancer previously treated with immunotherapy (Lee JY et al., Ann Oncol 2024). Considering these results, we are conducting a dose-optimization part of Study 102 (NCT04008797) in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma (aEC). Methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) must have a confirmed diagnosis of aEC, and prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-(L)1-directed therapy. Up to 3 prior lines of therapy, regardless of setting, are allowed; prior hormonal therapy and radiation do not count as lines of therapy. Patients will be randomized (1:1:1:1) to E7386 120 mg BID + lenvatinib 14 mg QD (n=30); E7386 60 mg BID + lenvatinib 14 mg QD (n=30); lenvatinib 24 mg QD monotherapy (n=30); or treatment of physician’s choice (TPC, doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 QW [3 weeks on/1 week off]; n=30 in total). Randomization will be stratified by region (Asia/North America/Rest of the World). The primary objective is to determine the optimal dose of E7386 + lenvatinib in aEC; additional objectives include: safety, assessing the contribution of E7386 to the overall treatment effect of E7386 + lenvatinib, and assessing the efficacy of E7386 + lenvatinib relative to TPC. Tumors will be assessed by investigators (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) every 8 weeks from the first dose. Adverse events will be monitored and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. This multinational study is actively recruiting. Clinical trial information: NCT04008797 .

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designRandomized 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 Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→