MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087125925 · doi:10.1097/cad.0b013e3283349994

Docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin in solid tumour treatment: a phase I study

2010· article· en· W2087125925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pol Specenier, Marika Rasschaert, Jan Van den Brande, J. Dyck, Dirk Schrijvers, Manon Huizing, Jan B. Vermorken

Bibliographic record

VenueAnti-Cancer Drugs · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIfosfamideDocetaxelMesnaCisplatinMedicineNitrogen mustardChemotherapyToxicityPharmacologyUrologyOncologyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin have proven activity in a broad range of solid tumours and interfere with different phases of the cell cycle. We performed a phase I study with the aim to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin in patients with solid tumours and to define the safety, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the recommended dose and administration schedule of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin for further phase II testing. Docetaxel was given by 1-h infusion on day 1, followed by ifosfamide 1000 mg/m(2)/day as a continuous infusion for 5 days. Mesna was added at the same doses to the same infusion bag and was continued for 12 h after the end of ifosfamide. Cisplatin was administered as a 24-h infusion concomitantly with ifosfamide, but in separate infusion bags, either on day 5 (schedule A) or on day 1 (schedule B). Escalation steps were planned only for docetaxel (60, 75, 85 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (50, 75, 100 mg/m(2)). No intrapatient dose escalation was permitted. Prophylactic ciprofloxacin was used after a protocol amendment was implemented. No prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors were used. Cycles of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin were given at 3-week intervals. Toxicity was scored according to National Cancer Institute Canada-Common Toxicity Criteria 2. The MTD was defined as the dose at which a DLT was observed in fewer than two of six patients during the first treatment cycle. In total, 85 patients received 309 cycles. Only three escalation steps could be explored and DLTs were observed at each dose level. In total, 32 patients and 49 cycles showed DLTs. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 20 patients (24%). Only two DLTs were nonhaematological (one cerebral infarction and one encephalopathy grade 4). Neutropenia grade 4 lasted for greater than 7 days and/or thrombocytopenia grade 4 was dose limiting in 10 patients. Febrile neutropenia occurred in five of 41 patients (12%) who received prophylactic ciprofloxacin and in 15 of 44 patients (34%) who did not. MTD was reached at level 3 (docetaxel, 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin, 75 mg/m(2)). With a lower dose of docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) both schedules A and B were feasible, although, overall, schedule A seemed to be better tolerated. On the basis of this phase I study, the recommended docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin regimen is docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) on day 1, ifosfamide (1000 mg/m(2)/day) on days 1-5 and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) given on day 5. It is associated with substantial haematological toxicity, but this is feasible provided prophylactic antibiotics are used.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.349 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnti-Cancer DrugsSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207