A Phase I, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study on Vorinostat in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin in Patients with Refractory Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat in combination with fixed doses of 5-fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Vorinostat was given orally twice daily for 1 week every 2 weeks. FOLFOX was given on days 4 and 5 of vorinostat. The vorinostat starting dose was 100 mg twice daily. Escalation occurred in cohorts of three to six patients. Pharmacokinetics of vorinostat, FU, and oxaliplatin were studied. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicities, and fatigue increased in frequency and severity at higher dose levels of vorinostat. Two of 4 evaluable patients at dose level 4 (vorinostat 400 mg orally twice daily) developed dose-limiting fatigue. One of 10 evaluable patients at dose level 3 (vorinostat 300 mg orally twice daily) had dose-limiting fatigue, anorexia, and dehydration. There were significant relationships between vorinostat dose and the area under the curve on days 1 and 5 (Pearson, < 0.001). The vorinostat area under the curve increased (P = 0.005) and clearance decreased (P = 0.003) on day 5 compared with day 1. The median C(max) of FU at each dose level increased significantly with increasing doses of vorinostat, suggesting a pharmacokinetic interaction between FU and vorinostat. Vorinostat-induced thymidylate synthase (TS) modulation was not consistent; only two of six patients had a decrease in intratumoral TS expression by reverse transcription-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat in combination with FOLFOX is 300 mg orally twice daily x 1 week every 2 weeks. Alternative vorinostat dosing schedules may be needed for optimal down-regulation of TS expression.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".