A phase 2 study of platinum and gemcitabine in patients with advanced salivary gland cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salivary gland cancers are rare, histologically diverse, and varied in their biologic behavior and responsiveness to systemic therapy. To the authors' knowledge, there currently is no standard chemotherapy for these tumors, but cisplatin-based regimens are often used. This phase 2 trial evaluated the combination of gemcitabine with cisplatin (carboplatin in those with protocol-defined contraindications to cisplatin). METHODS: Fit, consenting adult patients had advanced, metastatic, or locoregionally recurrent salivary gland cancer (any histologic subtype) that was not suitable for radiation or surgery. Therapy was comprised of gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on Days 1 and 8, and cisplatin at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) on Day 2, of a 21-day cycle. If carboplatin was substituted, it was administered on Day 1, targeted to an area under the concentration-time curve of 5 mg/mL/s. Response was assessed every 2 cycles according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. Patients received up to 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response. A 2-stage design was used, with a response rate of 45% required to declare the regimen active. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 30 were response evaluable. Eight objective responses were observed (1 complete and 7 partial) for a response rate of 24% (95% confidence interval, 11-42%), with responses observed in all histologic subtypes. Toxicity was within that expected for this combination. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen did not meet the predefined criteria to be declared active in advanced salivary gland cancers. Enrollment of patients with these rare cancers into well-designed clinical trials remains an urgent priority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".