Dose escalation to rash for erlotinib plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: the phase II RACHEL study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This phase II, open-label, randomised study evaluated whether patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving erlotinib/gemcitabine derived survival benefits from increasing the erlotinib dose. METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period (gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) once weekly plus erlotinib 100 mg per day), patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed grade 0/1 rash were randomised to receive gemcitabine plus erlotinib dose escalation (150 mg, increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks (maximum 250 mg); n=71) or gemcitabine plus standard-dose erlotinib (100 mg per day; n=75). The primary end point was to determine whether overall survival (OS) was improved by increasing the erlotinib dose. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of grade ⩾2 rash, and safety. RESULTS: Erlotinib dose escalation induced grade ⩾2 rash in 29 out of 71 (41.4%) patients compared with 7 out of 75 (9.3%) patients on standard dose. Efficacy was not significantly different in the dose-escalation arm compared with the standard-dose arm (OS: median 7.0 vs 8.4 months, respectively, hazard ratio (HR), 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.80; P=0.2026; PFS: median 3.5 vs 4.5 months, respectively, HR, 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77-1.54; P=0.6298). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between randomised arms. CONCLUSION: The erlotinib dose-escalation strategy induced rash in some patients; there was no evidence that the higher dose translated into increased benefit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".