Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33241650›Full record

Trial reportPharmacology research & perspectives2020

Pan-cancer population pharmacokinetics and exposure-safety and -efficacy analyses of atezolizumab in patients with high tumor mutational burden.

Colby S Shemesh, Phyllis Chan, Fatema A Legrand, David S Shames, Meghna Das Thakur, Jane Shi, Lorna Bailey, Shweta Vadhavkar, Xian He, Wei Zhang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Colby S ShemeshClinical Pharmacology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8861-9419
Phyllis ChanClinical Pharmacology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Fatema A LegrandClinical Science, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
David S ShamesBiomarkers, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Meghna Das ThakurBiomarkers, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jane ShiSafety Science, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Shanghai, China.
Lorna BaileySafety Science, Roche Products Ltd., Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom.
Shweta VadhavkarClinical Pharmacology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Xian HeBiometrics, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Wei ZhangBiometrics, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
René BrunoClinical Pharmacology, Genentech-Roche, Marseille, France.
Genoscience Pharma (France) · FRRoche (China) · CNRoche (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We retrospectively investigated the pharmacokinetics and exposure-efficacy/safety relationships of single-agent atezolizumab based on tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status (high vs low [≥16 vs <16 mutations/megabase]) in a pan-tumor population from seven clinical trials. Data sources included the OAK, POPLAR, BIRCH, FIR, IMvigor210, IMvigor211, and PCD4989g studies; 986 of 2894 treated patients (34%) had TMB data. Exposure metrics were obtained using a prior two-compartment intravenous-infusion population-pharmacokinetics model, merged with prognostic, biomarker, efficacy, and safety variables. Baseline demographic/clinical characteristics and prognostic factors were well balanced between patients with high (n = 175) and low (n = 811) tTMB. Exposure was similar in the high- and low-tTMB subgroups, with no difference seen in the evaluable vs total treated populations. The objective response rate (ORR) was 29.7% vs 13.4%, complete response rate was 6.9% vs 3.2%, and median duration of response (95% CI) was 29.0 (18.6-NE) months vs 15.9 (12.5-20.5) months for patients with high-tTMB vs low-tTMB tumors, respectively. A flat exposure-efficacy relationship was seen for ORR in patients with high-tTMB based on the cycle 1 minimum atezolizumab concentration and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC). A nonsignificant exposure-safety profile was seen for grade 3/4 adverse events and adverse events of special interest based on the AUC of atezolizumab in the high-tTMB population. tTMB is an additional predictive biological factor affecting response to atezolizumab, and quantitative investigations of atezolizumab exposure and relationships of exposure with safety and efficacy support the use of a 1200-mg, every 3-week regimen in a tumor-agnostic high-tTMB population.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeTumor BurdenAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsatezolizumabBiomarkers, Tumoratezolizumabbiomarkersclinical pharmacologymutationpharmacokineticstumor

Identifiers

PMID33241650
PMCPMC7689240
OpenAlexW3108325119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.