A phase I trial of erlotinib in patients with nonprogressive glioblastoma multiforme postradiation therapy, and recurrent malignant gliomas and meningiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this phase I study was to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of erlotinib in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas (MGs) or recurrent meningiomas on enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs). Dose escalation was by a standard 3 x 3 design. The initial starting dose of erlotinib was 150 mg daily. If no dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed, then dose escalation occurs as follows: 200 mg/day, 275 mg/day, and then increased in 125 mg increments until the MTD was reached. The MTD was defined as the dose where < or = 1 of 6 patients experienced a DLT and the dose above had 2 or more DLTs. The MTD was 650 mg/day; the observed DLTs were grade 3 rash in 2 patients at 775 mg/day. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed a significant influence of EIAEDs on the metabolism of erlotinib when compared with our phase II data published separately. Primary toxicities were rash and diarrhea. The MTD of erlotinib in patients receiving EIAEDs is substantially higher than the standard dose of 150 mg. This has important implications for further development of this drug in the treatment of MG as well as the optimal management of patients with other malignancies such as NSCLC who are on enzyme-inducing drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 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".