Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Trial of Oral CI-1033 for Previously Treated Advanced Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the antitumor activity and toxicity of two doses of CI-1033 in patients with platinum-refractory or recurrent ovarian cancer, and to determine baseline expression of epidermal growth factor receptor in tumor cells. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II, open-label clinical trial evaluated CI-1033 in patients with ovarian cancer who failed prior platinum-based therapy. Two oral doses of CI-1033 were evaluated--a 50-mg and a 200--mg oral dose administered daily for 21 days in a 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated for tumor response and toxicity; in addition, archival baseline tumor samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for erbB1 to erbB4 status. RESULTS: One hundred five eligible patients were treated. Baseline demographic characteristics were balanced in this heavily pretreated patient population. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens received was four. The most commonly encountered drug-related adverse events for both dose arms were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, stomatitis) toxicity, asthenia, and rash. No responses were observed. Stable disease was confirmed in 34% and 26% of patients in the 200-mg and 50-mg arms, respectively, and 1-year survival rates were 38.5% and 37.7%, respectively. Baseline erbB3 and erbB4 revealed the highest frequencies of expression, while erbB2 was the lowest. CONCLUSION: CI-1033 did not show activity in unscreened patients with advanced ovarian cancer. At 50 mg/d, CI-1033 had a more favorable adverse events profile than at 200 mg/d. erbB3 and erbB4 receptors showed the highest expression in tumor samples while erbB2 revealed the least. There appears to be no association between baseline erbB expression and disease stability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".