MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3081331636 · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.4130

A phase Ib/II trial of AMG 655 and panitumumab (pmab) for the treatment (tx) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Safety results

2009· article· en· W3081331636 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Rougier, Jon Infante, Jean‐Luc Van Laethem, Joe Stephenson, Hope E. Uronis, L. Schwartzberg, L. Chen, Chengqing Wu, Dominic Smethurst, Marc Peeters

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTolerabilityIrinotecanClinical endpointInternal medicinePanitumumabColorectal cancerPharmacokineticsOxaliplatinResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsPhases of clinical researchAdverse effectOncologyNauseaCancerGastroenterologyClinical trialCetuximab

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

4130^ Introduction: Pmab is a fully human antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor that is approved as monotherapy for mCRC in the US, EU, and Canada. AMG 655 is an investigational, fully human agonistic antibody against death receptor 5. This is the first study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AMG 655 and pmab for the tx of mCRC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were ≥ 18 years old, had ECOG status 0–1, radiographic disease progression (PD) during or after tx with fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and/or oxaliplatin chemotherapy for mCRC. This is a 2-part study: in part 1 (n∼6–27 pts), the primary endpoint is the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs); in part 2 (n∼38–41 pts), the primary endpoint is objective response rate per modified RECIST. Secondary endpoints for both parts include efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and antibody formation. In part 1, pts received pmab 6 mg/kg Q2W plus AMG 655 at a starting dose of 10 mg/kg (evaluation of subsequent doses of 3 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg if needed; 6–9 pts at each dose) by sequential intravenous infusion at week 1 and Q2W thereafter until PD or intolerability. The tolerable dose in part 1 was selected for part 2. Results: We describe here the safety of the first 15 pts (n=5 part 1; n=10 part 2) after ≥ 8 weeks on study. Eight (53%) pts were women, 14 (93%) pts were white, and 9 (60%) pts had ECOG 1. Median (range) age was 61 (38–77) years. All pts received pmab 6 mg/kg and AMG 655 10 mg/kg Q2W. Median (range) follow-up time was 15.4 (9–31) weeks. There were no DLTs in part 1, thus AMG 655 10 mg/kg Q2W was selected for part 2. One (7%) pt had a tx-related adverse event (AE) ≥ grade (gr) 3: gr 3 hypomagnesemia. Tx-emergent Aes ≥ 25% are shown ( Table ). Laboratory values ≥ gr 3: one gr 3 AST and ALT; one gr 3 lipase. From intensive PK samples from the first 6 pts, pmab had no apparent impact on the PK of AMG 655. Conclusions: AMG 655 and pmab can be safely combined in later lines of tx for mCRC. The study is ongoing. Safety results for additional pts will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text] ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting. For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings. For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,177
Tête enseignante GPT0,526
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical OncologyMême sujetColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesTravaux en français237 207