Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Molecularly Targeted Agents in Phase I Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: First-line treatment options utilizing chemotherapy and cytokine-based treatments for patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) are unsatisfactory. We analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with MM treated in phase I trials of novel agents. We hypothesized that patients included in phase I clinical trials did not have worse outcomes than with the chemotherapy and cytokine-based first-line treatment. METHODS: Data of patients with MM treated at The Drug Development Unit between 2004 and 2010 were collected. The response rate (RR) and time to progression (TTP) for first-line therapy were compared to those of phase I trial therapy. Patients acted as their own controls for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were treated in 31 phase I trials. First-line treatment included dacarbazine or temozolomide in 58 (89%) cases and interferon-α in 5 patients (8%) and cisplatin-based treatment in 2 patients (3%). There was no significant difference in either the RR (11 vs. 14%, p = 0.87) or TTP (90 vs. 53 days, p = 0.15) in patients treated with first-line treatment versus phase I treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: Phase I clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents show clinical activity that is not dissimilar to that of treatment with existing chemotherapy and cytokine-based treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".