Phase I study of cisplatin, irinotecan, and epirubicin administered every 3 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This phase I study was conducted to determine the recommended phase II doses, safety profile, and antitumour activity of a combination regimen of cisplatin, irinotecan, and epirubicin administered every 3 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumours. Cisplatin and epirubicin were given at fixed doses of 50 and 60 mg m(-2), respectively. The irinotecan dose was escalated at 10 mg m(-2) increments from a starting dose level of 70 mg m(-2). Epirubicin, irinotecan, and their metabolites were measured with HPLC methods. In all, 35 patients received 141 courses of treatment. Irinotecan dose was escalated in seven cohorts up to 130 mg m(-2), and then finally de-escalated to 110 mg m(-2). The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenic fever. Nonhaematologic toxicities included mild to moderate nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea and fatigue. Of 34 patients with evaluable disease, one patient had a complete response and nine patients had partial response, yielding an overall response rate of 29.4%. Pharmacokinetic parameters of epirubicin were not affected by the sequence of drug administration. However, the AUCs of irinotecan and its metabolites were increased significantly when irinotecan and epirubicin were administered concurrently. This combination regimen has promising broad antitumour activity, and will be further evaluated in phase II studies in multiple tumour types.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".