Phase I Study of Docetaxel in Combination with the P-Glycoprotein Inhibitor, Zosuquidar, in Resistant Malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of docetaxel infused over 1 hour when given in combination with oral zosuquidar to patients with resistant solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In cycle 1, patients received docetaxel alone. In subsequent cycles, zosuquidar was administered with docetaxel, which was escalated from 75 to 100 mg/m2. Zosuquidar was escalated from 100 to 300 mg/m2 every 8 hours on days 1 to 3 for a total of 7 doses, or from 400 to 500 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses administered 2 hours before docetaxel. The pharmacokinetics of docetaxel with and without zosuquidar administration were obtained. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 41 patients completed at least one cycle of docetaxel and zosuquidar. The maximum tolerated dose was docetaxel 100 mg/m2 and zosuquidar 500 mg every 12 hours for 2 doses. The most common toxicity was neutropenia. In 35 patients, zosuquidar produced minimal increases in the docetaxel peak plasma concentrations and area under the curve. Dosing over 3 days with zosuquidar (7 doses) did not show benefit over the 1-day dosing. Of the 36 patients, one patient had a partial response, and 14 patients had disease stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel at 75 or 100 mg/m2 and zosuquidar 500 mg 2 hours before docetaxel and 12 hours later is well tolerated. Zosuquidar minimally alters the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel, allowing full dose docetaxel to be given with this P-glycoprotein modulator. A Phase II study with this combination in advanced breast carcinoma is underway.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".