A multi‐center phase Ib study of oxaliplatin (NSC#266046) in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin in pediatric patients with advanced solid tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platinum agents have been used for a variety of cancers, including pivotal use in pediatric tumors for many years. Oxaliplatin, a third generation platinum, has a different side effect profile and may provide improved activity in pediatric cancers. PROCEDURE: Patients 21 years or younger with progressive or refractory malignant solid tumors, including tumors of the central nervous system were enrolled on this multi-center open label, non-randomized Phase 1 dose escalation study. The study used a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design with 2 dose levels (85 and 100 mg/m(2) ) with an expansion cohort of 15 additional patients at the recommended dose. Patients received oxaliplatin at the assigned dose level and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus 400 mg/m(2) followed by a 46-hour 5-FU infusion of 2,400 mg/m(2) every 14 days. The leucovorin dose was fixed at 400 mg/m(2) for all cohorts. RESULTS: Thirty-one evaluable patients were enrolled, 8 at 85 mg/m(2) and 23 at 100 mg/m(2) for a total of 121 courses. The median age was 12 years (range 2-19 years). The main toxicities were hematologic, primarily neutrophils and platelets. The most common non-hematologic toxicities were gastrointestinal. Stable disease was noted in 11 patients (54% of evaluable patients) and 1 confirmed partial response in a patient with osteosarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum planned dose of oxaliplatin at 100 mg/m(2) per dose in combination with 5-FU and leucovorin was safe and well tolerated and in this patient population. This combination demonstrated modest activity in patients with refractory or relapsed solid tumor and warrants further study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:230-236. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".