Lymph node-targeted, mKRAS-specific amphiphile vaccine in pancreatic cancer: the randomized phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial

Key numbers

• 9.17-fold over baseline
• 75.7% versus 61.7%

Camupepimut (ELI-002 7P) drives mutated KRAS (mKRAS)-specific T cell responses that correlated with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with mKRAS pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the phase 1 AMPLIFY-201 trial. In the phase 2 AMPLIFY-7P trial, patients with stage I-III KRAS-mutated PDAC without recurrence within 6 months of standard therapy were randomized 2:1 to camupepimut (n = 96) or standard-of-care/observation (n = 48). Stratification balanced nodal status. The primary DFS endpoint was not met (median 23.8 versus 21.2 months; HR 0.85, P = 0.5329). However, prespecified and exploratory analyses were informative. A numerical DFS advantage at 6 months of 14.0% (75.7% versus 61.7%; HR 0.55, P = 0.0557) corresponded to camupepimut dosing. Post hoc multivariate Cox regression analysis of DFS indicated an improved outcome for camupepimut (adjusted HR 0.47, P = 0.0086), a worse outcome for stage III disease (adjusted HR 2.29, P = 0.0127), an elevated baseline CA19-9 (adjusted HR 3.16, P < 0.0001) and baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) positivity (adjusted HR 5.99, P < 0.0001). Prespecified subgroup analyses addressing prognostic and predictive factors suggested DFS benefit for camupepimut (ctDNA negative: HR 0.51, P = 0.0280; no prior radiation: HR 0.59, P = 0.0221). Exploratory analysis demonstrated that ex vivo mKRAS-specific T cell responses were robust (98.9%, 89/90) and associated with antigen spreading (86.7%, 13/15). In camupepimut-treated patients, mKRAS-specific T cell response >9.17-fold over baseline (82.2%, 74/90) correlated with improved DFS (HR 0.22, P < 0.0001), with the median DFS not reached versus 6.08 months for above and below 9.17-fold, respectively. Camupepimut safety was similar to observation, with grade ≥3 adverse events in 10.4% (10/96) versus 14.6% (7/48), and few serious AEs (6.3%, 6/96 versus 8.3%, 4/48; reflecting progression/surgical complication). These efficacy and immunogenicity signals will inform a refined strategy for a confirmatory phase 3 trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05726864 .

Ben George, Harshabad Singh, Craig E Devoe, Vincent Chung, Peter J Hosein, Andrew Hendifar, Dae Won Kim, Jennifer B Valerin, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Dana B Cardin, Manuel Hidalgo, Pashtoon M Kasi, Alexis D Leal, Meredith Pelster, Naomi Fei, Colin D Weekes, Mark H O'Hara, Thomas J George, Syed M Kazmi, Jonathan D Mizrahi, Suresh Nair, Martin Maiers, Thian Kheoh, Gianni Amato, Jino Xavier, Julia P Snyder, Madison H Milaszewski, Xavier Cabana-Puig, James R Perry, Lisa K McNeil, et al.

Leverage2 / 5

Reusable within one subfield (a technique, dataset, or protocol a few groups will adopt).

10% of this desk’s rubric

Magnitude3 / 5

Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.

20% of this desk’s rubric

Evidence4 / 5

Strong: large scale, preregistered, independently replicated, or a well-powered randomized trial.

32% of this desk’s rubric

Novelty3 / 5

A genuinely new approach to an open problem.

8% of this desk’s rubric

Trajectory2 / 5

Some room to improve with obvious engineering.

5% of this desk’s rubric

Stakes3 / 5

Meaningful benefit to many people within a few years.

25% of this desk’s rubric

• Citations0 (reference 20, via openalex, Oct 25, 2026, 06:17 UTC)

• Reviewed by heuristic-v10 on Oct 25, 2026, 06:17 UTC. Paper type: clinical.
• Categories: Journal Article
• BRIEF, No.2 in the Medicine edition of October 25, 2026.