MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase II study of Halichondrin B analog eribulin mesylate (E7389) as second-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

2009· article· en· W2270737067 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm J. Moore, Pek Sang Tang, D. J. Renouf, P. Major, David W. Hedley, Vicki Paterson, L. Wang, Bindi Dhesy-Thind, Bernadette Southwood, L. Austin Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEribulinMedicineGemcitabineInternal medicineGastroenterologyNeutropeniaPancreatic cancerProgressive diseaseOncologyAdverse effectCancerMetastatic breast cancerToxicitySurgeryChemotherapyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e15634 Background: Eribulin mesylate is a halichondrin B analog that inhibits microtubule dynamics by a mechanism that is distinct from other tubulin-targeted agents. Preclinical studies suggest that Eribulin may be effective in pancreatic cancer. The primary objective of this study was to determine the objective response rate (complete and partial) to Eribulin in patients with advanced, pancreatic adenocarcinoma that had progressed after gemcitabine based therapy. Methods: Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma; measurable locally advanced, or metastatic disease; disease progression after gemcitabine; and ECOG performance status 0–2. Patients (pts) received Eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed by CT scans every 6 weeks while on treatment. Initially 12 pts were to be accrued, if 1 or more pt(s) had an objective response the accrual would increase to a total of 37. Results: 15 pts were accrued,14 received treatment and 12 were evaluable for response. Median age 61; M:F = 8:7; ECOG 1:2 = 11:4; Median number of cycles 2 (1–15). Grade 3+ adverse events included neutropenia (29%), fatigue (14%), peripheral neuropathy (7%) and thrombosis (7%). There were no complete or partial responses, and therefore the study was closed at the first accrual cut off. The best response was stable disease (SD) in 5/12 (42%) pts. Of these 5 pts, 3 (42%) had SD for 12 cycles or greater. Survival data is pending. Conclusions: Eribulin was well tolerated and did not result in any objective responses in refractory pancreatic cancer. However, 42% of pts had stable disease and for 3 pts this was maintained for more than 9 months. Further studies of eribulin in pancreatic cancer may be warranted. 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.432 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNon-randomized trial · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207