MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972475443 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-11-c17

Abstract C17: A phase I study of the combination of RO4929097 (RO) and cediranib (Cd) in patients with advanced solid tumors (PJC-004/NCI 8503).

2011· article· en· W1972475443 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Castonguay, Philippe L. Bédard, Helen X. Chen, Percy Ivy, Amit M. Oza, Eric X. Chen, Hal W. Hirte, Angela McGarrity, Anne Laughlin, Sonya Lovell, Lisa Wang, Lillian L. Siu, Sebastién J. Hotte

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicinePharmacodynamicsPharmacologyPharmacokineticsNotch signaling pathwayInternal medicineGastroenterologyToxicityResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsMaximum tolerated doseAdverse effectOncologyPhases of clinical researchReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The NOTCH signaling pathway has been implicated in the tumorigenesis of several human cancers. Pre-clinical models have shown that deficiency of components of the NOTCH pathway results in abnormal vascular remodelling. Upregulation of NOTCH signaling has been implicated in resistance to anti-VEGF therapy, providing a rationale for the combination of RO, a gamma secretase inhibitor that disrupts NOTCH signaling, and Cd, a VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The primary objective of this study is to determine safety, tolerability and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the combination of RO and Cd. Secondary objectives are preliminary anti-tumor efficacy, as per RECIST v1.1 measurements, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. Methods: Adults with histologically confirmed solid malignancies for whom no effective conventional treatment is available are eligible. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation design is used. Cycle 1 is 42 days (D), where RO is given orally once daily D1–3, 8–10, 15–17, 22–24, 29–31, 36–38 and Cd is given orally once daily D22–42. Cycle 2 and onwards are 21 days, with RO given D1–3, 8–10, 15–17 and Cd given continuously D1–21. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period is 42 days (cycle 1). Results: As of August 15 2011, 11 patients (pts) have been treated at two dose-levels (DL). 7 pts were treated at DL1 (RO = 10 mg; Cd =20 mg,) and 4 were treated at DL2 (RO = 20 mg; Cd = 20 mg). Pts had received a median of 3 prior lines of treatment prior to enrolment and received a median of 3 cycles on study. The most common drug related adverse events were: diarrhea (n = 9), hypertension (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), headache (n = 4), fatigue (n = 4), liver enzyme elevation (n = 3), hypophosphatemia (n = 3), anemia (n =3) and hypothyroidism (n =3). There were 2 DLTs observed: grade 3 hypertension occurred in a pt with metastatic melanoma treated at DL1 and grade 4 aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation in a pt with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma treated at DL2. Best response was stable disease in 7 pts, progressive disease in 3 and 1 pt was inevaluable. A prolonged response of over 6 cycles was observed in 3 pts (1 pt with cholangiocarcinoma withdrew consent after completing cycle 6, 1 pt with endometrial stromal sarcoma is still on study and stable after 8 cycles, 1 pt with colon cancer progressed after completing 7 cycles). Reasons for discontinuation were progressive disease in 6 pts, toxicity in 1 pt and withdrawal of consent in 1 pt. 3 pts are still on study. Conclusion: The combination of RO and Cd appears feasible; dose escalation is ongoing to establish the RP2D. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies to evaluate soluble markers of angiogenesis will be conducted. The combination of RO and Cd shows encouraging early signs of activity, with 3 of 11 patients achieving stable disease for at least 6 cycles. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2011 Nov 12-16; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10(11 Suppl):Abstract nr C17.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207