Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Linsitinib (OSI-906) and Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cross-talk between type I IGF receptor (IGF1R), insulin receptor (INSR), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediates resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study aimed to determine the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity of linsitinib, a potent oral IGF1R/INSR inhibitor, with EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This open-label, dose-escalation study investigated linsitinib schedules S1: once daily intermittent (days 1-3 weekly); S2, once daily continuous; S3, twice-daily continuous; each with erlotinib 100-150 mg once daily; and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expansion cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (S1, 44; S2, 24; S3, 12; expansion cohort, 15) and 91 treated. Seven experienced dose-limiting toxicities: QTc prolongation (3), abnormal liver function (2), hyperglycemia (1), and anorexia (1). Common adverse events included drug eruption (84%), diarrhea (73%), fatigue (68%), nausea (58%), vomiting (40%). MTDs for linsitinib/erlotinib were 450/150 mg (S1), 400/100 mg (S2). On the basis of prior monotherapy data, S3 dosing at 150 mg twice daily/150 mg once daily was the recommended phase II dose for the expansion cohort. There was no evidence of drug-drug interaction. Pharmacodynamic data showed IGF-1 elevation and reduced IGF1R/INSR phosphorylation, suggesting pathway inhibition. Across schedules, 5/75 (7%) evaluable patients experienced partial responses: spinal chordoma (268+ weeks), rectal cancer (36 weeks), three NSCLCs including 2 adenocarcinomas (16, 72 weeks), 1 squamous wild-type EGFR NSCLC (36 weeks). Disease control (CR+PR+SD) occurred in 38 of 75 (51%), and 28 of 91 (31%) patients were on study >12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The linsitinib/erlotinib combination was tolerable with preliminary evidence of activity, including durable responses in cases unlikely to respond to erlotinib monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2897-907. ©2016 AACR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".