Dose-Escalating and Pharmacologic Study of Oxaliplatin in Adult Cancer Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: A National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and maximally tolerated doses of oxaliplatin in patients with hepatic impairment and to develop formal guidelines for oxaliplatin dosing in this patient population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixty adult cancer patients with variable hepatic function received i.v. oxaliplatin ranging from 60 to 130 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by levels of total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (AP) into five cohorts based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction: control group A [bilirubin, AST, and AP < or = upper limit of normal (ULN)], mild dysfunction group B (bilirubin < or = ULN, ULN < AST < or = 2.5 x ULN, or ULN < AP < or = 5 x ULN), moderate dysfunction group C (ULN < bilirubin < or = 3.0 mg/dL, AST > 2.5 x ULN, or AP > 5 x ULN), severe dysfunction group D (bilirubin > 3.0 mg/dL, any AST, and any AP), and liver transplantation group E (any bilirubin, any AST, and any AP). Doses were escalated in cohorts of three patients, and urine and plasma ultrafiltrates were assayed for platinum concentrations. RESULTS: Dose escalation of single-agent oxaliplatin to 130 mg/m(2) was well tolerated in all cohorts. Platinum clearance did not correlate with any liver function test. Two of 56 assessable patients with a diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma and cervical adenocarcinoma experienced partial responses lasting 3 and 5.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin at 130 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks was well tolerated in all patients with impaired liver function. Dose reductions of single-agent oxaliplatin are not indicated in patients with hepatic dysfunction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".