Phase I Study of the Combination of Sorafenib and Temsirolimus in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This phase I clinical trial was conducted to determine the safety, efficacy, and molecular effects of sorafenib with temsirolimus in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV or unresectable or recurrent stage III melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. Sorafenib was given orally once or twice daily and temsirolimus was given i.v. weekly, both starting on day 1, with a 4-week cycle. Responses were assessed every 2 cycles per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Consenting patients with accessible tumors underwent optional tumor biopsies before treatment and after the second infusion of temsirolimus. Tumor biopsies were analyzed for activating mutations in BRAF and NRAS, and for expression of P-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (P-ERK) and P-S6 proteins. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were accrued to the study. The maximum tolerated doses were sorafenib 400 mg every morning and 200 mg every evening and temsirolimus 25 mg i.v. weekly. Dose-limiting toxicities included thrombocytopenia, hand-foot syndrome, serum transaminase elevation, and hypertriglyceridemia. There were no complete or partial responses with the combination; 10 patients achieved stabilization of disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months. Matching pretreatment and day 15 tumor biopsies showed marked inhibition of P-S6 with treatment in 3 of 4 evaluable patients, but minimal inhibition of P-ERK. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with sorafenib and temsirolimus resulted in significant toxicity at higher dose levels, failed to achieve any clinical responses in genetically unselected patient population, and did not inhibit P-ERK.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".