A Comparative Oncology Study of Iniparib Defines Its Pharmacokinetic Profile and Biological Activity in a Naturally-Occurring Canine Cancer Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of iniparib as an anti-cancer agent was hindered in part by lingering questions regarding its mechanism of action, the activity of its metabolites, and their potential accumulation in tumors. Due to strong similarities in metabolism of iniparib between humans and dogs, a veterinary clinical trial in pet dogs with spontaneous cancers was designed to answer specific questions pertaining to pharmacokinetic exposures and tolerability of iniparib. Dogs were treated with iniparib alone and in combination with carboplatin chemotherapy. Iniparib doses ranged between 10-70 mg/kg intravenously (IV). Plasma, tumor and normal tissue samples were collected before and at various time points scheduled after exposure for pharmacokinetic and biologic analysis. The primary endpoints included characterization of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and determination of the drug exposures that could be achieved in both normal and tumor tissues. Nineteen dogs were treated. DLT included fever, anorexia, diarrhea, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia; most effects were attributable to carboplatin based on the timing of adverse event onset. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of iniparib was not identified. Moderate to high variability in plasma exposure was noted for iniparib and all metabolites between animals. When quantifiable, iniparib and metabolite plasma:tumor ratios were < 0.088 and <1.7, respectively. In this study, iniparib was well tolerated as a single agent and in combination with carboplatin over a range of doses. However, clinically relevant concentrations of the parent drug and selected metabolites were not detectable in canine tumor tissues at any studied dose, thus eliminating expectations for clinical responses in dogs or humans. Negative clinical trials in humans, and the uncertainties of its mechanism of action, ultimately led to the decision to stop clinical development of the drug. Nevertheless, the questions that can be asked and answered within the comparative oncology approach are evident from this successfully executed comparative clinical trial and exemplify the value of such studies in drug development.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".