Phase II study of biweekly plitidepsin as second-line therapy in patients with advanced malignant melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of 5 mg/m2 plitidepsin administered as a 3-h continuous intravenous infusion every 2 weeks to patients with advanced malignant melanoma who relapsed or progressed after one line of systemic therapy. Objective response rate (primary efficacy endpoint) was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and toxicity was assessed using National Cancer Institute -Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2.0. Of 39 enrolled patients (median age: 53 years), 37 patients were treated who received a total of 167 treatment cycles (median: 3 cycles per patient; range: 1-32). All patients had received prior systemic therapy with a median of one line per patient (range: 1-6 lines). Of the 35 evaluable patients, two dacarbazine-resistant patients (5.7%) with metastatic cutaneous melanoma achieved partial responses. Five other patients (14.3%) reported stable disease (median stable disease duration: 3.5 months; range: 2.2-15.8 months). Therefore, the rate of tumor growth control was 20.0%. With a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median progression-free survival was 1.3 months and the median overall survival was 3.5 months. Six patients (16.2%) had the following treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: myalgia (n = 3), injection-site reaction (n = 2), hypersensitivity, hypotension, and fatigue (n = 1 each). One patient was withdrawn from the trial because of grade 4 hypersensitivity reaction and hypotension. No severe neutropenia was reported. Plitidepsin showed a minor degree of antitumor activity in patients with refractory advanced malignant melanoma. Further evaluation of plitidepsin in combination schedules may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".