MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase I, dose-escalation trial of continuous and pulsed-dose afatinib (A) combined with pemetrexed (P) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors: Final analysis.

2013· article· en· W2599986538 on OpenAlexaff
Quincy S. Chu, Randeep Sangha, Sebastién J. Hotte, Gwen Sergenson, Vikram K. Chand, Roxana I. Sufan, Yu Gu, David Schnell, Hal W. Hirte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)Juravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacokineticsAfatinibInternal medicineMaximum tolerated doseGastroenterologyPharmacologyUrologyNuclear medicineCancerErlotinibEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2523 Background: A is an irreversible ErbB Family Blocker that has shown additive effects when combined with P in EGFR-mutant NSCLC cell lines. This Ph I trial assessed the MTD, safety and PK of continuous and pulsed-dose A + P in pts with advanced solid tumors. Methods: In a3+3 dose-escalation design, IV P (500 mg/m2) was administered on day (d) 1 of each 21-d cycle combined with either continuous oral A qd (Schedule A; SA) on d1–21 (d2–21 in Cycle 1) or pulsed-dose oral A qd (Schedule B; SB) on d1–6 of each 21-d cycle. In SA, A starting dose was 30 mg, escalated to maximum of 50 mg. Once the MTD was reached in SA, A was administered at a starting dose of 50 mg in SB. Pts received up to 6 cycles of P with the option for A monotherapy thereafter. P and steady state A PK were analyzed by intra-individual comparison in SA only for possible drug–drug interaction. Results: 53 pts were treated (SA: n=23, median age 58 yrs; ECOG 0/1/2 [30%/65%/4%]; SB: n=30, median age 62 yrs, ECOG 0/1/2 [27%/70%/3%]). MTD of A in SA was 30 mg; 8 pts had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in Cycle 1 (40 mg: 2/3 pts; 30 mg; 6/19 pts). 30-mg cohort included 19 evaluable pts; 1 pt was replaced during expansion (incomplete PK collection) and had a DLT. MTD of A in SB was 50 mg; 11 pts had DLTs in Cycle 1 (70 mg: 4/5 pts; 60 mg: 6/17 pts; 50 mg: 1/6 pts). Most frequent drug-related AEs in SA were diarrhea (91%), stomatitis (65%) and rash (61%) and in SB were diarrhea (83%), rash (83%) and fatigue (80%); most were Grade 1/2. 6 pts in SA and 8 pts in SB completed 6 treatment cycles; 1 pt in each schedule remain on treatment. Best response in SA was 1 confirmed partial response (CPR; NSCLC, prior sequential chemotherapies and erlotinib) and 6 pts with stable disease (SD). In SB, best response was 1 CPR (bladder cancer, prior sequential chemotherapies) and 10 pts with SD. No clinically relevant PK interactions between A and P were observed. Conclusions: Continuous or pulsed-dose A combined with P exhibited a manageable safety profile. No clinically relevant PK interactions were seen in SA. Continuous dose A 30 mg/d with P 500 mg/m2 (d1 of each 21d cycle) is the recommended dose for further Ph II studies. No apparent safety or dose advantage was observed in SB. Clinical trial information: NCT01169675.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207