MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

320 Integrated efficacy and safety analysis of letetresgene autoleucel, a T-cell receptor T-cell therapy, across clinical trials of patients with synovial sarcoma and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma

2025· article· W4415898865 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. D’Angelo, Dejka M. Araujo, Albiruni RA Razak, Andrew J.S. Furness, Brian Andrew Van Tine, Mihaela Druta, Melissa Burgess, Fiona Thistlethwaite, A. Chalmers, John B.A.G. Haanen, Jonathan Noujaim, Richard F. Riedel, David A. Liebner, Neeta Somaiah, Warren Chow, Rashmi Chugh, Lara E. Davis, Ana Sebio, Mark Agulnik, Édouard Forcade, Michael J. Wagner, Stephan A. Grupp, Scott M. Schuetze, Michael Carlton, Beth Ireland, Erin Van Winkle, Michael J. Nathenson, Dennis Williams, Elliot Norry, John Glod

Bibliographic record

VenueRegular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialSoft tissue sarcomaSynovial sarcomaLiposarcomaSarcomaReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Letetresgene autoleucel (lete-cel) is an investigational T-cell receptor therapy targeting the NY-ESO-1 cancer/testis antigen, which is highly expressed in synovial sarcoma (SyS) and myxoid (with or without round cell) liposarcoma (MRCLS). An integrated analysis of lete-cel efficacy and safety was conducted using pooled data from three single-arm trials of patients with advanced SyS and MRCLS.Methods The integrated efficacy and safety analysis included data from two pilot trials ( NCT01343043, NCT02992743) and the pivotal IGNYTE-ESO trial (NCT03967223), plus an ongoing long-term follow-up study (NCT03391778). Eligibility: previously treated advanced (unresectable/metastatic) SyS or MRCLS, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A*02:01, *02:05, or *02:06-positive, NY-ESO-1 expression, baseline ECOG 0–1, and received any dose of lete-cel. Treatment-naïve patients (SyS, n=5) were excluded from the efficacy analyses. Response was assessed by independent review in all three studies. Key efficacy endpoints: overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1, best overall response, duration of response (DoR), time to response, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and persistence. Key safety endpoints: adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, AEs of special interest, deaths, laboratory assessments, and replication competent lentivirus. Data was pooled and outputs present combined data and subgroup analyses summarized by indication and overall.Results A total of 178 sarcoma patients were enrolled, of which 147 received lete-cel and were included in the pooled safety population (97 [66.0%] with SyS, 50 [34.0%] with MRCLS) and 142 were evaluable for efficacy. At baseline in the overall population, median age was 40.0 years (range, 10–73), 44.4% were female, and 92.3% were White; baseline characteristics were similar across SyS and MRCLS. Independent reviewer-assessed ORR was 43.0% (61/142) overall, 45.7% (42/92) in SyS, and 38.0% (19/50) in MRCLS ( table 1). Median DoR and PFS in overall/SyS/MRCLS was 7.16/6.74/7.16 months and 5.29/4.04/7.69 months, respectively. Median OS was 20.50 months overall. The integrated safety analysis will be presented but to date, lete-cel treatment has a manageable safety profile consistent with T-cell therapy and lymphodepletion, including transient serious cytopenias, rash, and mild/moderate cytokine release syndrome.Conclusions The integrated analyses provide a comprehensive report of the efficacy and safety profile of lete-cel in the largest population to date. Efficacy as assessed by ORR, PFS, and OS was comparable across indications, further supporting the validity of lete-cel as an effective therapy for patients with advanced SyS and MRCLS.Acknowledgements This analysis was funded by Adaptimmune. Writing and editorial support was by Chloe Koulouris, PhD, of Envision Pharma, Inc. (Horsham, UK), funded by Adaptimmune.Trial Registration Lete-cel pilot trial in SyS (CT.gov, NCT01343043) Lete-cel pilot trial in MRCLS (CT.gov, NCT02992743) Lete-cel phase 2 IGNYTE-ESO (CT.gov NCT03391778)Ethics Approval This was a secondary analysis of existing clinical trial data and did not require ethical approval. Written informed consent was obtained from participants at the time each trial was conducted.Abstract 320 Table 1Integrated efficacy analysis outcomes from previously treated patients with SyS or MRCLS who received lete-cel treatment in interventional clinical trials (independent review)

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)0.004
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRegular and Young Investigator Award AbstractsSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207