MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B160: ANG1005: New EPiC compound for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma

2009· article· en· W2318057464 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Drappatz, Andrew Brenner, Steven S. Rosenfeld, Tom Mikkelsen, David Schiff, Patrick Y. Wen, Morris D. Groves, Kelly Elian, D. Fitsialos, B Fraitag, Betty Lawrence, Jean‐Paul Castaigne

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsIntrinsik (Canada)Angiochem (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliomaMedicineTolerabilityNeutropeniaAdverse effectTaxaneInternal medicineCancerOncologyGastroenterologyPharmacologyCancer researchBreast cancerToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract ANG1005 is a new generation taxane created from Angiochem's Engineered Peptide Compound (EPiC) platform. Studies have shown that ANG1005 gains entry into the brain compartment by targeting the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein (LRP) which is one of the most highly expressed receptors on the surface of the BBB. Once inside the brain, ANG1005 enters tumor cells using the same receptor-mediated pathway through LRP, which is upregulated in various cancer cells including malignant glioma cells. Approximately 16,000 new cases of malignant glioma are diagnosed in adults in the United States every year with poor prognosis. A multi-center, phase I, open-label, sequential cohort, dose escalation study of ANG1005 in patients with recurrent malignant glioma is ongoing in the US. Study objectives include characterization of safety and tolerability and identification of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). To examine whether or not ANG1005 could be measured in malignant glioma tumors in humans, fresh, excised tumor samples from patients undergoing debulking surgery following administration of one dose of ANG1005 were collected and analyzed. ANG1005 is administered by IV infusion once every 21 days (1 treatment cycle) without premedication. Doses of 30–700 mg/m2 have been evaluated to date; 650 mg/m2 is currently being expanded as MTD. Data including adverse events and hematological parameters indicate that ANG1005 is safe and well tolerated. The most common events occurring at a severity ≥ Grade 2 according to CTCAE, version 3.0 in patients dosed ≥ 300 mg/m2 (n=28) were neutropenia (71% of patients; Grade 4 in 36%), leucopenia (61%; Grade 4 in 11%), infusion reactions (25%; mostly Grade 2 and easily controllable - no cases of Grade 4) and rash (21%; mostly Grade 2 - no cases of Grade 4); these events have been transient and manageable with standard treatments. Neurocognitive data have shown that ANG1005 does not cause cognitive impairment and tests for antibodies demonstrate that ANG1005 does not elicit antibody production even in patients who had reported infusion reactions and/or rashes. Pharmacokinetic data indicate linear ANG1005 bioavailability. Analysis of tumor samples from patients who had received doses of ANG1005 of 200–550 mg/m2 4–6 hours prior to debulking shows a concentration of ANG1005 in tumors relative to plasma of 8 to 379%. Differences between samples are attributed to the different dose levels tested, the range of timing between dosing and tumor extraction and differences in tumor consistencies. Additional analysis revealed that the tumor samples did not grow when cultured in neurospheres. Disease control (≥ stable disease) assessed by MRI was achieved in 60% of patients dosed ≥ 300 mg/m2 including one patient who was progressing on bevacizumab therapy prior to study entry. Tumor stabilization and in some cases significant reduction in tumor size and reversal of neurological deficits were observed in patients with high grade gliomas. Clinical data gathered to date indicate a promising future for the development of ANG1005 for the treatment of patients with malignant glioma. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8(12 Suppl):B160.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207