MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986700293 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.targ-11-c69

Abstract C69: Preliminary activity of temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in patients with recurrent, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the cervix: An NCIC-CTG phase II clinical trial.

2011· article· en· W1986700293 on OpenAlexaff
Anna V. Tinker, Helen Mackay, Susan Ellard, Stephen Welch, Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemsirolimusMedicineResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsInternal medicineClinical endpointProgressive diseasePhases of clinical researchOncologyAdenosquamous carcinomaCancerChemotherapyCervixAdenocarcinomaSurgeryClinical trialPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayDiscovery and development of mTOR inhibitors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway is deregulated in invasive cervical carcinomas, possibly as a result of HPV infection. This NCIC CTG 2-stage phase II study aimed to assess the activity of intravenous (IV) temsirolimus, an ester derivative of rapamycin that inhibits mTOR, in patients with metastatic and/or locally advanced recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Methods: Eligibility criteria included: squamous, adenosquamous or adenocarcinoma histology, measurable disease, and PFS ≤2. Prior concurrent chemoradiation and 1 prior line of chemotherapy were permitted. Primary endpoint was objective response (by RECIST 1.1), secondary endpoints included response duration, time to progression and molecular correlates of outcome in archival tissue. Temsirolimus 25 mg i.v. was administered weekly in 4 week cycles. Tumor response was assessed every 8 weeks. One response amongst the first 18 patients was required to proceed to the second stage of accrual. Results: 35 pts (data on 31 available) have been enrolled to date, 28 are now evaluable for toxicity and 23 for response. Follow up is ongoing. 20 pts had received prior chemoradiation and 15 prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. 19 pts had squamous, 8 adeno and 4 adenosquamous histology. Median age was 52 (range 26–77) yrs. A total of 110 cycles of treatment (median 3; range 1–12) were delivered. 33% of patients received >/= 90% of the planned dose intensity. To date 1 had a partial response (4.3%) lasting 7.2 months, and 15 stable disease (65.2%) median duration of 6.9 months (range 2.4–12.0 months), 11 pts remain on treatment. The median progression free survival was 5.49 months [95% CI (3.65–7.62)]. The most common drug related adverse events of any grade (% of pts) were: fatigue (39%), mucositis (36%), rash maculo-papular (32%), diarrhea (29%), rash-acneiform (21%), and anorexia (18%). Grade 3 hematologic and biochemical toxicites included: lymphopenia (41%), anemia (15%), hyponatremia (11%), hypertriglyceridemia (11%), hyperglycemia (11%), and hypokalemia (7%). No toxicity > grade 3 was observed. Two patients came off study because of adverse events (thromboembolic event and pneumonitis). Six patients experienced 7 serious and possibly drug related adverse events [rash (1), anemia (2), abdominal pain (1), thromboembolism (1), parasthesia (1), edema (1), and diarrhea (1)]. Seven pts required dose reductions, most commonly for the occurrence of rash or mucositis. Conclusions: Single agent temsirolimus has modest levels of activity in cervical carcinoma with a notably high proportion and duration of disease stabilization. Correlative studies of PI3K pathway will examine which tumor characteristics are associated with PR + SD and this will assist in focusing future investigation of temsirolimus. 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 C69.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207