Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31174889›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2019

A phase 1b dose escalation study of ipafricept (OMP54F28) in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Kathleen N Moore, Camille C Gunderson, Paul Sabbatini, D Scott McMeekin, Gina Mantia-Smaldone, Robert A Burger, Mark A Morgan, Ann M Kapoun, Rainer Karl Brachmann, Robert Stagg and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Exploring the Roles of Wnt Signaling Pathway and Non-Coding RNAs in COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Evolutionary conservation and cancer implications of the WNT signaling pathway.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Regulatory effect of Wnt signaling on mitochondria in cancer: from mechanism to therapy.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2025
    Review
  13. Targeted treatment for craniopharyngioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Bone health in cancer: perspective on the use of osteoanabolic agents.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2025
    Review
  17. Emerging roles and biomarker potential of WNT6 in human cancers.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Why Is Wnt/β-Catenin Not Yet Targeted in Routine Cancer Care?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kathleen N MooreStephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK 800 NE 10th Street, OKC, OK 73104, United States of America. Electronic address: kathleen-moore@ouhsc.edu.
Camille C GundersonStephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK 800 NE 10th Street, OKC, OK 73104, United States of America.
Paul SabbatiniMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States of America. Electronic address: sabbatip@mskcc.org.
D Scott McMeekinStephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK 800 NE 10th Street, OKC, OK 73104, United States of America.
Gina Mantia-SmaldoneFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: Gina.Mantia-Smaldone@fccc.edu.
Robert A BurgerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: Robert.burger@uphs.upenn.edu.
Mark A MorganUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: mark.morgan@uphs.upenn.edu.
Ann M KapounOncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Redwood City, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: ann.kapoun@oncomed.com.
Rainer Karl BrachmannOncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Redwood City, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: rainer.brachmann@oncomed.com.
Robert StaggOncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Redwood City, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: Robert.stagg@oncomed.com.
Azeez FarookiOncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Redwood City, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: azeez.farooki@oncomed.com.
Roisin E O'CearbhaillMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States of America. Electronic address: ocearbhr@mskcc.org.
OncoMed (United States) · USOklahoma State University Oklahoma City · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USRobert Morris University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe WNT pathway is an important oncologic driver of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The first-in-class recombinant fusion protein ipafricept (IPA) blocks Wnt signaling through binding of Wnt ligands. This phase Ib trial was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RPh2) for IPA in combination with taxane and platinum therapy (C/P).

methodsDose escalation started with a standard 3 + 3 design for IPA/C/P with q3w intravenous IPA on Day 1, in cycles 1 to 6 with C (AUC = 5 mg/ml·min) and P (175 mg/m

results37 patients have been treated; 30 of whom were treated following protocol revision to q3w IPA(D1) → C/P(D3) (2 & 4 mg/kg). IPA-related TEAEs that occurred in ≥15% included: fatigue (40%); nausea (35%); diarrhea and decreased appetite (22%) each; dysgeusia (19%); and vomiting (16.2%). 22% reported ≥1 IPA related TEAE Grade ≥3 the most common of which was neutropenia at 16%. There were no DLTs; the MTD was not reached. The maximum administered dose based on bone safety was 6 mg/kg. The overall response rate (ORR) was 75.7%. Median PFS was 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5-14.2) and OS 33 months (95% CI 23.4-NR).

conclusionsIPA is well tolerated in combination with sequential C/P. ORR, PFS and OS are comparable to historical data but bone toxicity at efficacy doses of this particular Wnt inhibitor limit further development in EOC.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBone and BonesCarboplatinCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin Fc FragmentsMaximum Tolerated DoseMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPaclitaxelReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledRecombinant Fusion ProteinsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicCarboplatinImmunoglobulin Fc FragmentsOMP-54F28PaclitaxelReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledRecombinant Fusion ProteinsIpafriceptOvarian cancerPlatinum sensitiveWnt signaling

Identifiers

PMID31174889
PMCPMC7397408
OpenAlexW2948146865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.