An Optimized Clinical Regimen for the Oncolytic Virus PV701
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous phase 1 trials of i.v.-administered PV701 have shown this virus to be well-tolerated with toxicity primarily associated with the first dose. Our hypothesis, based on preclinical evidence, was that patient tolerability could be improved by slowing the i.v. infusion rate, and that this approach would allow for the safe administration of higher doses. Additionally, this phase 1 trial was the first to measure PV701 clearance. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: For the first dose, a 3-h infusion was used compared with the 10- and 30-min infusions administered in the two previous trials. Subsequent doses were infused over 1 h. Six doses were given per 3-week cycle. Escalation of the first dose was done separately from the escalation of doses 2 to 6. Viral clearance was determined using whole blood reverse transcription-PCR. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with advanced chemorefractory cancer were enrolled. The first dose was safely escalated to 24x10(9) plaque-forming units/m2 and doses 2 to 6 were safely escalated to 120x10(9) plaque-forming units/m2. Tolerability was improved compared with the rapid bolus dosing used previously with the elimination of severe flu-like symptoms. Furthermore, infusion reactions were markedly decreased in this trial compared with previous PV701 trials. The presence of neutralizing antibodies did not significantly affect PV701 clearance. Four major and two minor tumor responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using slow infusion, patient tolerability was improved, while the first dose was safely escalated relative to two previous PV701 trials. Based on improved tolerability and encouraging signs of activity, this slow infusion regimen was selected for further PV701 clinical development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".