MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Preliminary phase 2 results of ABT-751 in subjects with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)

2005· article· en· W2566958034 on OpenAlexaff
A. Hagey, Robert A. Figlin, Nancy P. Moldawer, Jeffrey A. Sosman, K. N., Diane Medina, KEVIN MEEK, Paul Cernohous, Gary Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)BC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectNauseaDiscontinuationInternal medicineRenal cell carcinomaGastroenterologyConstipationIleusAdjuvant therapyCarcinomaSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4603 Background: There is currently no effective adjuvant therapy available for subjects with advanced RCC. ABT-751, an oral antimitotic agent that binds to the colchicine site of β-tubulin and prevents microtubule polymerization, has shown antitumor activity in various human xenograft models. In addition, signs of antitumor activity, consisting mainly of stable disease, were seen in subjects with RCC during phase 1 ABT-751 studies. Methods: This phase 2, open label, multi-center study evaluated safety and efficacy of ABT-751 in subjects with advanced RCC [N = 97: 43 subjects with no prior therapy (NPT), 54 subjects with prior therapy (PT)]. For each cycle, subjects received 200 mg ABT-751 orally once daily for 21 consecutive days followed by a 7-day break. Cycles were repeated until the subject met discontinuation criteria. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Time to progression (TTP) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Tumor response was assessed radiographically every 2 cycles using RECIST. Results: The median duration of therapy was 2 cycles (range 1 - 10). AEs were reported in 94/97 subjects, and 31/97 (32%) subjects experienced serious adverse events (SAEs). The most commonly reported AEs were asthenia (69%), constipation (59%), nausea (46%), and anorexia (44%). The most common Grade 3 or 4 AEs considered possibly or probably related to drug were asthenia (7%) and ileus (7%). The most common SAEs were carcinoma (6%) and ileus (6%). Thirteen subjects experienced SAEs considered possibly related to study drug, and the most common were ileus (5%) and diarrhea (2%). The median TTP was 3.8 months (95% CI = 3.6 - 4.1). One partial response was observed, and the subject is ongoing in Cycle 9. Two other subjects are experiencing minor responses (26% and 22% decrease in target lesions; ongoing in Cycles 6 and 9, respectively). To date, 17 subjects have had stable disease for 8 or more cycles (12 NPT and 5 PT), the longest duration being nearly one year. Conclusions: The 21-day dosing regimen appears to have an acceptable safety profile in phase 2 clinical trials. Prolonged stable disease and tumor responses suggest a potential benefit from ABT-751 therapy. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→