Phase II study of EZN-2208 (PEG-SN38) with or without cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
448 Background: EZN-2208 is a water-soluble, parenterally-delivered PEGylated conjugate of SN38 that increases solubility, exposure, and apparent half-life of SN-38. Methods: Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent CRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and no more than 2 distinct progressions, were screened for K-Ras mutation and stratified accordingly. Patients with K-Ras tumor mutation (Mut) were treated with EZN-2208 (9mg/m2 SN-38 equivalents) over 1-h IV on days 1, 8, 15 in 4-wk cycles (Arm A). Patients with K-Ras wild type (WT) tumors were randomized (2:1) to EZN-2208 (as above) and cetuximab (250mg/m2 weekly following 400mg/m2 on D1) (Arm B) or to irinotecan (125mg/m2) over 90min IV days 1, 8 in 3 week cycles and cetuximab (as above) (Arm C). The primary objectives of the study were to determine the overall response rates (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) (Arm A) and compare PFS (Arms B and C). A comparison of safety and toxicity of EZN-2208 and irinotecan was planned as well. Results: Demographic and efficacy parameters are summarized in the table . Common adverse events (Arms A%, B%, C%), observed in > 25% of patients in at least one arm of the study, were diarrhea (45%, 64%, 55%), fatigue (56%, 56%, 39%), nausea (43%, 59%, 47%), vomiting (31%, 46%, 39%), constipation (27%, 26%, 37%), abdominal pain (25%, 28%, 32%), anemia (33%, 21%, 21%), dermatitis acneiform (0%, 28%, 26%), hypokalemia (17%, 28%, 26%), and alopecia (12%, 28%, 3%). Conclusions: EZN-2208 in combination with cetuximab is active in patients in the 3rd line setting of CRC and comparable to irinotecan in combination with cetuximab. EZN-2208 monotherapy did not result in responses in patients with CRC following progression on irinotecan. EZN-2208 has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile as monotherapy, and in combination with cetuximab. [Table: see text]
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".