MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Once-daily oral afatinib (A) combined with pemetrexed (P) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors: A phase I dose escalation trial.

2012· article· en· W2597637166 on OpenAlexaff
Quincy Chu, Randeep Sangha, Sebastién J. Hotte, Qiqi Deng, Steve Gyorffy, Vikram K. Chand, Hal W. Hirte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)Juravinski Cancer CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAfatinibErlotinibInternal medicineCohortMaximum tolerated doseToxicityGastroenterologyCancerOncologySurgeryEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13011 Background: A is an oral, irreversible, ErbB Family Blocker with single-agent activity in a variety of solid tumors. Preclinical studies have demonstrated additive antitumor effects when combining A or erlotinib with P in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines with sensitizing or resistant EGFR mutations. We hypothesized that once-daily A given with P would be safe and feasible in pts with advanced solid tumors. Methods: This Phase I trial was a standard 3+3 dose escalation design where A was administered orally at a starting dose of 30 mg/day on days 2–21 and combined with IV P (500 mg/m2) on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. A was increased by 10 mg for each successive cohort until determination of the MTD, defined as the dose of A below which ≥2 of six pts experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in Cycle 1. MTD cohort was expanded to 18 pts and incidence and severity of AEs were graded according to CTCAE v3.0. Pts were treated to a maximum of 6 cycles with the option for A monotherapy thereafter. Results: 23 pts with advanced tumors were treated: 10 males, 13 females, ECOG 0/1/2 (30%/65%/4%), median age 58 yrs, and 57% received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. In Cycle 1, treatment-related DLTs were observed in six pts; two pts of three treated at 40 mg/day A dose and four pts of 20 treated at the MTD of 30 mg/day A dose. A and P were well tolerated, with the most frequent treatment-related AEs being diarrhea (91%; of which 86% were grade 1–2), stomatitis (65%) and rash (61%). Pts received a median of 2 cycles of treatment; five pts received >4 cycles, including one patient with serous ovarian cancer who continues on trial treatment beyond 14 months. Best response of 21 available pts included two partial responses, 14 with stable disease, and three with progressive disease. Detailed response and PK data will be further analyzed. Conclusions: In pts with relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors, oral A at 30 mg/day combined with standard dose P (500 mg/m2) administered on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle, had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. The study is currently evaluating an intercalated schedule of A on Days 2–6 with P based on preclinical synergy thought to arise from cell-cycle pharmacodynamic separation of A and P.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.424 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→