Association of baseline IL-8 and ferritin with clinical outcome with everolimus and BNC105P in the DisrupTOR-1 trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
475 Background: The vascular disrupting agent (VDA) BNC105P shows synergy with everolimus in preclinical models. The DisrupTOR-1 trial included a phase I component exploring this combination and a randomized phase II component comparing everolimus with BNC105P (Arm A) to everolimus monotherapy (Arm B) (Pal et al. ESMO 2014). Methods: Pts with clear cell mRCC and 1-2 prior therapies (including ≥1 VEGF-TKI) were randomized in the phase II study component. In Arm A, patients received a 7 day lead-in dose of everolimus followed by dosing with BNC105P. Patients in Arm A had optional blood collections prior to administration of BNC105P and 3 hours after receiving BNC105P. A fluorescence-based assay was used to characterize a broad panel of analytes at each time point. Biomarkers were assessed in both a static and dynamic fashion. For the former, biomarkers were stratified by median value, and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared in resulting subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. For the latter, change in biomarker level before and after BNC105P infusion was stratified by median difference, and PFS was compared in resulting subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 139 pts were randomized with 69 and 67 evaluable pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Dynamic biomarkers were assessed in a total of 44 patients who received everolimus with BNC105P. Increases in matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and stem cell factor (SCF) were associated with improved PFS (p=0.0421 and p=0.0291, respectively). Decreases in sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and serum amyloid protein (SAP) were associated with improved PFS (p=0.0184 and p=0.0063). With respect to static biomarkers, elevated baseline ferritin and lower baseline IL-8 were associated with improved PFS (p=0.0291 and p=0.0149, respectively). Conclusions: Several static and dynamic biomarkers in the DisrupTOR-1 trial were associated with PFS. A prospective biomarker-driven study examining everolimus with BNC105P selected by baseline IL-8 and ferritin is in development. Clinical trial information: NCT01034631.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".