MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term safety of BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25) in patients (pts) with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2009· article· en· W2598974724 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Butts, H Anderson, Andrew W. Maksymiuk, D. Vergidis, Denis Soulières, Yvon Cormier, Mary A. Davis, E. Marshall, Martin Falk, Glen Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Cancer CentreCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicinePopulationGastroenterologyLung cancerVaccinationPhases of clinical researchCancerSurgeryClinical trialImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3055 Background: The BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25, Stimuvax) is an investigational innovative therapeutic cancer vaccine incorporating immunoadjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A and synthetic MUC1 lipopeptide in a liposomal delivery system. In an open-label phase IIb study in 171 pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC randomized to best supportive care (BSC) alone (n=83) or BSC + L-BLP25 (1000 μg lipopeptide) (n=88), L-BLP25 pts received weekly vaccinations for 8 weeks (wks) and could continue maintenance vaccinations every 6 wks from wk 13. Results were encouraging (Butts et al, JCO 2005) and a remarkable number of pts received prolonged treatment (tmt). As a result a global phase III study (START) has been initiated. Methods: Safety results for 16 pts from the phase IIb study treated for ≥2 years with L-BLP25 are reported. Results: In these 16 pts (median age 57.5 years, ECOG PS: 0 in 5/16 [31%] and 1 in 11/16 [69%]), there were more females (56% vs 44% [9/16 vs 76/171]) and locoregional stage IIIB disease at entry (81% vs 38% [13/16 vs 65/171]) vs the phase IIb study population. Pts received L-BLP25 for 2.0–7.7 years and 10 pts were treated for >5 years. Compliance with tmt was good: almost all (96%) maintenance vaccinations were given every 6 wks according to the tmt schedule. L-BLP25 was well tolerated: the most common tmt-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were cough (n=12, 75%), fatigue (n=12, 75%), and dyspnea (n=11, 69%). The pattern of TEAEs did not change significantly over time and there was no rise in the incidence of TEAEs with increasing time on tmt. Among the most common TEAEs in years 1, 2, and >2 were nausea (44, 19, and 38%), fatigue (56, 18, and 38%), chest pain (38, 31, and 31%), and cough (38, 25, and 31%). Twelve pts (75%) had tmt-related TEAEs (grade 1/2 in 11/12 pts [92%] and grade 3 in 1/12 [8%]): the most common were injection-site reactions. The occurrence of tmt-related TEAEs decreased with increasing tmt duration. There was no evidence of any TEAEs related to autoimmunity. Analysis of laboratory data did not indicate any long-term renal, liver, or other toxicity. Conclusions: Long-term use of L-BLP25 was without any identifiable safety issues. In particular, there was no evidence of autoimmune reactions with prolonged use. [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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207