A Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Trial of Erlotinib in Combination with Weekly Docetaxel in Patients with Taxane-Naive Malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose of weekly docetaxel combined with daily erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with any solid tumor received 150 mg erlotinib with escalating doses of docetaxel (20, 25, 30, and 35 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. The pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and erlotinib was determined on cycle 2, day 1. Erlotinib was given for a maximum of 12 cycles and docetaxel was given for up to 6 cycles. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (17 males and 8 females) were enrolled with a median age of 56 years (range, 34-76); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 was 20/5. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity in cycle 1 at the 25 mg/m(2) level (grade 3 enterocolitis). At 35 mg/m(2) docetaxel dose level, 6 of 10 patients required dose reductions to 30 mg/m(2) beyond cycle 1 due to neutropenia (3 patients) and mucositis, increased bilirubin, and diarrhea (1 patient each). The clearance of docetaxel and erlotinib of 61.7 and 8.16 L/h, respectively, did not seem to differ from historical controls. Responses were seen in non-small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, and hepatobiliary cancers, including a complete response lasting 36+ months in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Although no maximum tolerated dose was reached in cycle 1 with 35 mg/m(2) docetaxel, repetitive dosing proved intolerable in a substantial number of patients; thus, the recommended phase II dose of weekly docetaxel is 30 mg/m(2) when combined with 150 mg of daily erlotinib.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".