MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase I study of sorafenib and RAD001 for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

2009· article· en· W2211107270 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Harzstark, Jonathan E. Rosenberg, Vivian Weinberg, Julia Sun, Charles J. Ryan, Amy Lin, Lawrence Fong, Dion R. Brocks, Eric J. Small

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibMedicineSunitinibRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineDosingToxicityUrologyPazopanibProgressive diseasePharmacokineticsOncologyGastroenterologyHepatocellular carcinomaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5104 Background: Both RAD001 and sorafenib have activity against advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Inhibition of both mTOR and angiogenesis may improve outcomes; therefore, a phase I trial combining sorafenib and RAD001 was undertaken. Methods: Cohorts of 3 or 6 patients with ccRCC were treated with a 7 day run-in period of sorafenib 400 mg PO BID continuously followed by RAD001 (dose level I: 2.5 mg, dose level II: 5 mg) PO QD and sorafenib 400 mg PO BID continuously. Pharmacokinetic sampling of sorafenib was obtained on day -1, and of both RAD001 and sorafenib on day 15 of combination therapy. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as occurring within the first 28 days of therapy. Results: Fifteen patients with a median age of 65 (range 51–75) have been enrolled. Two patients were not evaluable for response or DLT evaluation. Five pts were treated with sunitinib previously. Zero of 6 pts on dose level 1 experienced a DLT. Two of 9 pts treated at dose level II have experienced protocol-defined DLTs (grade 4 uric acid and grade 3 lipase with grade 2 pancreatitis). Independently-reviewed best objective responses in 13 evaluable pts include 3 confirmed partial responses (10, 17+, and 23+ months), 6 stable disease (2+, 4+, 4.5, 6+, 13, and 23+ months), and 4 progressive disease. Steady state dosing of RAD001 demonstrated a steady state AUC0–24h of RAD001 of 193.3 (± 32.9) ng h/mL at a dosage of 5 mg QD, comparable to the single agent 5 mg QD steady state dosing AUC0–24h of 238 (± 77) ng h/mL, suggesting there is no pharmacokinetic interaction between RAD001 and sorafenib. Linear pharmacokinetics between the 2.5 and 5 mg QD dosages of RAD001 were observed. The AUC0–24h of sorafenib was not significantly changed by concomitant dosing with RAD001 with a steady state AUC0–24h of 134600 (±42072) ng h/mL pre-RAD001 and a post-sorafenib steady state AUC0–24h of 131451 (±53838) ng h/mL. Conclusions: Combination therapy with sorafenib and RAD001 is safe and feasible. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction was observed. Activity for the combination has been observed and a phase II study is planned at the 5 mg QD dosage of RAD001. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207