Phase I Targeted Combination Trial of Sorafenib and Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sorafenib and erlotinib are potent, orally administered receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors with antiproliferative and antiangiogenic activities. Given their inhibitory target profile and efficacy as single agents, the combination of these drugs is of considerable interest in solid malignancies. This study aimed to determine the recommended phase II dose of this targeted combination, their toxicity profile, pharmacokinetic interaction, and preliminary clinical activities. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sorafenib was administered alone for a 1-week run-in period, and then both drugs were given together continuously, with every 28 days considered as a cycle. Three dose levels were assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with advanced solid tumors received 75 cycles of treatment. The most frequent adverse events of all grades were constitutional and gastrointestinal in nature followed by electrolytes and dermatologic toxicities. Fatigue was the most common adverse event (17 patients; 100%) followed by diarrhea (15 patients; 88%), hypophosphatemia (13 patients; 76%), and acneiform rash (12 patients; 71%). These adverse events were predominantly mild to moderate. The recommended phase II dose of this combination was determined as 400 mg twice daily sorafenib and 150 mg daily erlotinib. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed no significant effect of erlotinib on the pharmacokinetic profile of sorafenib. Among 15 evaluable patients, 3 (20%) achieved a confirmed partial response and 9 (60%) had stable disease as best response. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib and erlotinib are well tolerated and seem to have no pharmacokinetic interactions when administered in combination at their full single-agent recommended doses. This well tolerated combination resulted in promising activity that needs further validation in phase II studies.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".