MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of an individualized dose/schedule strategy for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) on progression-free survival (PFS): Correlation with dynamic microbubble ultrasound (DCE-US) data.

2011· article· en· W2590055499 on OpenAlexaff
Georg A. Bjarnason, B. Khalil, R. P. Williams, John M. Hudson, Brendan Lloyd, Laurent Milot, Mostafa Atri, Alex Kiss, Peter N. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSunitinibToxicityUrologyInternal medicineOncologyNuclear medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

356 Background: Sunitinib area under the curve (AUC) correlates with response and PFS (Houk et al). Current recommendations for dose modification do not take this into account. Methods: A single center retrospective review identified mRCC patients (pts) where individualized (individ) sunitinib dose/schedule modifications (DSM) were used to maximize dose and minimize time off therapy (Rx). Pts were started on 50 mg 28 days (d) on/14 d off. DSM were done to keep toxicity (fatigue, skin, GI) at ≤ grade-2. DSM-1 was 50 mg 14 d/7 d with individ increases in d on Rx based on toxicity. DSM-2 was 50 mg 7 d/7 d with individ increases in d on Rx. DSM-3 was 37.5 mg continuously with individ 7 d breaks. DSM-4 was 25 mg continuously with individ 7 d breaks. Results: In 171 pts; median age was 60y; 20% good, 60% intermediate, 20% poor prognosis by Heng criteria; 80% had nephrectomy; 79% clear cell histology; 60% were previously untreated. At a median follow-up of 10.7 months (mo), overall median PFS was 7.9 mo. Of 39 pts still on therapy, 37 were on a DSM Rx. Pts were allocated to three groups based on the dose/schedule used for the longest time. The PFS/response% (PR+SD) for each group was 4.4 mo/65.6% (standard 50 mg 28 d/14 d; 43 pts), 8.0 mo/78.2% (DSM-1/DSM-2; 69 pts) and 10.4 mo/81.3% (DSM-3/DSM-4; 59 pts) with improved PFS (p=0.001) in both DSM groups vs. the standard schedule but no difference in response. 30 pts were studied by DCE-US at baseline, and after 7 d and 14 d on Rx or after 14 d and 28 d on Rx. In responding pts, tumor blood volume decreased at d 7 and again at d 14 vs. baseline but was stable or increased at d 28 vs. d 14. A rebound was seen after 14 d off Rx. Conclusions: Based on the U.S. data, previous pharmacokinetic data (steady state at 10-14 d) and this clinical data, starting pts on 50 mg 14 d/7 d followed by individ DSM may be safe and active. This DSM strategy, was associated with a favorable toxicity profile, apparent improvement in PFS and a good PR+SD rate in a group of unselected mRCC pts, warranting confirmation in a prospective trial. Pts that tolerate 50 mg 28 d/14 d with minimum toxicity may need dose escalation and/or less time off therapy to optimize PFS. [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 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207