Abstract 1690: Definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: There is no consensus about what constitutes a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in phase I cancer clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate how DLTs are defined in phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTA). Methods: We retrieved all phase I trials testing monotherapy with an MTA published in English after January 1st, 2000. In each trial, all items used to define DLTs were recorded. Results: Reports of 155 phase I trials evaluating 111 different MTAs were reviewed. The median DLT assessment period was 28 days [range: 7-56]. Among the 155 trials, the most common category of hematologic toxicity was “hematologic toxicity, not otherwise specified (NOS)”. Similarly, the most common category of non-hematologic toxicity was “non-hematologic toxicity, NOS”. A total of 8 other categories of hematological items and 46 categories of non-hematologic organ-specific items were employed to define DLTs in the 155 trials reviewed. Organ-specific items were reported in 111 trials (72%). Mean number of organ-specific items per trial increased from 2.03 in the 2000-2005 timeframe to 2.79 in the 2006-2010 timeframe (p=0.02). The most frequent determinant of whether a toxicity was regarded as a DLT was severity, usually assessed using the NCI CTCAE grading system. However, for any given toxicity, there was substantial variability in the degree of severity required for a toxicity to be considered a DLT. A number of other factors were increasingly found to influence the determination of DLT. Specifications about minimum duration and degree of reversibility were incorporated into the definition of a non-hematologic DLT in 13% and 12% of trials respectively. The need to delay treatment and to reduce dose-intensity because of toxicity was incorporated in the definition of DLT in 19% and 8% of trials respectively. The definition of DLT varied with administration schedule, with (near-)continuous dosing regimen often defining DLTs at lower severities. Definition of DLT did not differ according to classes of agents, to first-in-human versus not first-in-human studies or to dose escalation method used. Twenty three percent of the organ-specific DLTs defined in the trials in which non-hematologic DLTs occurred were actually encountered, suggesting an added value of these organ-specific DLTs to the generic definition. In 28 of the 155 trials (18%), toxicities were eventually considered to be DLTs even though they were not initially defined as such. Conversely, in 13 of the 155 trials (8%), toxicities were not reported as DLTs even though they were initially defined as such. Conclusions: The definition of DLT is heterogeneous across phase I cancer clinical trials of MTA administered as monotherapy and depended on the drug administration schedule. While our results do no support the standardization of the definition of DLT, we provide recommendations aiming at reducing the heterogeneity observed in the definition of DLT. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1690. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-1690
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,081 | 0,140 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».