A phase I study of intravenous liposomal daunorubicin (DaunoXome) in paediatric patients with relapsed or resistant solid tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthracyclines are widely used in paediatric oncology, but their use is limited by the risk of cumulative cardiac toxicity. Encapsulating anthracyclines in liposomes may reduce cardiac toxicity and possibly increase drug availability to tumours. A phase I study in paediatric patients was designed to establish the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) after a single course of liposomal daunorubicin, 'DaunoXome', as a 1 h infusion on day 1 of a 21 day cycle. Patients were stratified into two groups according to prior treatment: Group A (conventional) and group B (heavily pretreated patients). Dose limiting toxicity was expected to be haematological, and a two-step escalation was planned, with and without G-CSF support. Pharmacokinetic studies were carried out in parallel. In all, 48 patients aged from 1 to 18 years were treated. Dose limiting toxicity was neutropenia for both groups. Maximum tolerated dose was defined as 155 mg m(-2) for Group A and 100 mg m(-2) for Group B. The second phase with G-CSF was interrupted because of evidence of cumulative cardiac toxicity. Cardiac toxicity was reported in a total of 15 patients in this study. DaunoXome shares the early cardiotoxicity of conventional anthracyclines in paediatric oncology. This study has successfully defined a haematological MTD for DaunoXome, but the significance of this is limited given the concerns of delayed cardiac toxicity. The importance of longer-term follow-up in patients enrolled into phase I studies has been underestimated previously, and may lead to an under-recognition of important adverse events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".