MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase II trial of weekly i.v. KW‐2170 in advanced castrate‐resistant prostate cancer

2010· article· en· W1595251153 on OpenAlexaff
Paul L. de Souza, Scott North, Graeme B. Bolger, H. Spiridonidis, Kei Siong Khoo, James Phillips, Matt Fujimori

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaProstate cancerInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchNauseaOncologyChemotherapyCancerGastroenterologyUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: KW-2170 is a novel pyrazoloacridone derivative that intercalates nucleic acids. It has promising in vitro properties against prostate and other cancers and is active in vivo against doxorubicin-resistant cell lines. We wished to investigate its activity and toxicity profile in this Phase II trial in androgen independent prostate cancer. METHODS: Overall 44 men were recruited to this multicenter, open label, non-randomized study, with 35 evaluable for prostatic specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS: Five patients had a PSA fall greater than 50% (overall RR 14.3%, 95% CI 4.8-30.3%). Overall median survival was 16 months. In the evaluable group (n = 35), median survival was 18.9 months. The drug was very well tolerated, with the most common toxicities being hematological (anemia, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia), alopecia, fatigue, and nausea. However, most of these were National Cancer Institute Grade 1 or 2; Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in only 11% of patients, and there was no Grade 4 neutropenia. Quality of life as measured by the FACT-P scale was not compromised. CONCLUSION: KW-2170 is a very well tolerated chemotherapy agent. It has a relatively low PSA response rate, and did not meet the pre-specified criteria for further studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207