MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD5-7: Phase Ib study of LCL161, an oral antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins, in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors: Safety and efficacy results, including breast cancer cohort

2013· article· en· W1979378213 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Dienstmann, Bárbara Adamo, Laura Vidal, EC Dees, Stephen Chia, EL Mayer, TS Baney, Shyeilla V. Dhuria, Sen Sk, D Papoutsakis, Scott B. Cameron, J. R. Infante

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaFebrile neutropeniaPharmacokineticsPaclitaxelOvarian cancerPharmacologyPharmacodynamicsCancerInternal medicineAdverse effectChemotherapyBreast cancerCombination therapyTolerabilityOncologyInhibitor of apoptosisGastroenterologyApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: LCL161 is a small molecule that triggers tumor cell apoptosis by selectively antagonizing inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAPs). Preclinical studies demonstrated antitumor efficacy of LCL161 alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents, acting synergistically with paclitaxel in breast cancer models. A Phase I study confirmed potent pharmacodynamic (PD) effects at well-tolerated doses of 1800 mg once weekly. The purpose of this Phase Ib study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), PD, and preliminary antitumor activity of LCL161 in combination with weekly paclitaxel. Methods: Patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors were treated with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 each week, immediately followed by escalating doses of LCL161 administered once weekly. PK and biomarker sampling was performed. Patients with breast or ovarian cancer were treated at the MTD/R2PD in the dose-expansion phase of the study. Results: As of 4 June 2013, 61 patients have received LCL161 doses of 600 mg (n = 3), 1200 mg (n = 5), 1500 mg (n = 5), and 1800 mg (n = 48), including 26 patients with breast cancer and 19 patients with ovarian cancer. Median duration of exposure was 10 weeks. The most common LCL161-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (53%), anemia (36%), and neutropenia (34%). Eleven patients experienced AEs indicated by the principal investigator as a toxicity requiring dose reduction or a change to a 3 week on/1 week off schedule (ten at 1800 mg and one at 1200 mg), seven of which were neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. The MTD was not reached, and 1800 mg was selected as the RP2D. In the safety expansion group of patients with breast cancer treated at 1800 mg, 17 (out of 20) patients were evaluable for response by investigator assessment using RECIST criteria; of these, 47% achieved a partial response, 35% had stable disease, and 18% developed progressive disease. Interestingly, responses were seen in patients with documented progression to prior taxane-based regimens. Of note, in the ovarian cancer cohort, one patient achieved a complete response. In the study overall, 26% achieved a partial response, and 30% experienced stable disease. No PK interaction between LCL161 and paclitaxel was observed. Discussion: Combination therapy with LCL161 and paclitaxel is well tolerated, with manageable toxicities and encouraging clinical efficacy in breast cancer. Enrollment of additional patients with breast cancer resistant to paclitaxel is ongoing. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr PD5-7.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207