Phase I Study of Cediranib in Combination with Oxaliplatin and Infusional 5-Fluorouracil in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cediranib is a potent oral inhibitor of the tyrosine kinase activity associated with all subtypes of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. Purposes of this study were to determine the recommended phase II dose of cediranib in combination with standard doses of modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6), and the tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of this combination in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Cediranib was administered daily orally at a starting dose of 30 mg and escalated to 45 mg daily, and mFOLFOX-6 was repeated every 14 days. Pharmacokinetic studies were done for oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cediranib. Response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors every four cycles. RESULTS: Sixteen patients received 150 cycles of treatment (median, 6; range, 1-20 cycles). Of 9 patients enrolled at the 30-mg dose level, 1 patient experienced grade 3 diarrhea during cycle 1. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed in 7 patients at the 45-mg dose level. Common grade 3 toxicities related to cediranib included hypertension, diarrhea, fatigue, and anorexia. Of 14 patients evaluable for response, there were 6 partial responses (42.9%; 95% confidence interval, 17.7-71.1%) and 6 stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months. There were no pharmacokinetic interactions between cediranib and 5-fluorouracil or free plasma intact oxaliplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Toxicities of this combination were manageable and consistent with previous studies. The recommended phase II dose is cediranib at 30 mg daily continuously in combination with standard doses of mFOLFOX-6. Cediranib and mFOLFOX-6 has promising antitumor activity and this combination warrants further investigation.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".