Phase I/randomized phase II study of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, with or without protracted temozolomide in adults with recurrent glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This phase I/II trial evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of afatinib plus temozolomide as well as the efficacy and safety of afatinib as monotherapy (A) or with temozolomide (AT) vs temozolomide monotherapy (T) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Phase I followed a traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine MTD. Treatment cohorts were: afatinib 20, 40, and 50 mg/day (plus temozolomide 75 mg/m(2)/day for 21 days per 28-day cycle). In phase II, participants were randomized (stratified by age and KPS) to receive A, T or AT; A was dosed at 40 mg/day and T at 75 mg/m(2) for 21 of 28 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6). Participants were treated until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression. RESULTS: Recommended phase II dose was 40 mg/day (A) + T based on safety data from phase I (n = 32). Most frequent AEs in phase II (n = 119) were diarrhea (71% [A], 82% [AT]) and rash (71% [A] and 69% [AT]). Afatinib and temozolomide pharmacokinetics were unaffected by coadministration. Independently assessed PFS-6 rate was 3% (A), 10% (AT), and 23% (T). Median PFS was longer in afatinib-treated participants with epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR) vIII-positive tumors versus EGFRvIII-negative tumors. Best overall response included partial response in 1 (A), 2 (AT), and 4 (T) participants and stable disease in 14 (A), 14 (AT), and 21 (T) participants. CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib has a manageable safety profile but limited single-agent activity in unselected recurrent GBM patients.
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) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".