MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Phase II trial of sorafenib (S) and vinorelbine (V) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis.

2012· article· en· W2600242980 on OpenAlexaff
Cristiano Ferrario, Wilson H. Miller, Helen Charamis, Adrian Langleben, Gerald Batist, Emanuela Scarpi, Oriana Nanni, Lawrence Panasci

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacokineticsTolerabilityMetastatic breast cancerVinorelbineInternal medicineToxicityGastroenterologyNeutropeniaUrologyPharmacologyCancerBreast cancerOncologyChemotherapyAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1099 Background: S inhibits pathways involved in cancer resistance to treatments (Raf, VEGFR, PDGFR). This phase 2 trial aimed to define tolerability and efficacy of full doses of S and V in mBC. Toxicity data were previously reported: frequent dose reductions were noted, for which we investigated a possible PK interaction. Indeed, the metabolism of both S and V depends on hepatic CYP3A isoenzymes. Methods: Patients with measurable (RECIST), HER2 negative mBC received first-line therapy with V (30 mg/m2 days 1, 8 every 21) + S (400 mg bid). After 8 cycles patients could be switched to S alone. For PK analysis 6 patients started S on day 4 of cycle 1, to compare plasma levels of V, S and M2 (N-oxide active metabolite of S) when V and S were administered apart from each other versus concomitantly. Plasma samples were collected at time 0 (oral intake of S or right before V infusion), at completion of V infusion and after 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 7, 24, 48 and 72 hours from time 0 (cycle 1 day 1 for V and day 21 for S+M2; cycle 2 day 1 for both). Samples were analyzed using validated LC-MS/MS assays. Results: 27 patients (median age 57, 35-71) received a median of 8 cycles (1-28), with one patient still on treatment. With repeated cycles 48% of patients required at least 1 dose reduction and 3 patients discontinued therapy for toxicity. 30% of patients had a partial response, 85% had clinical benefit (including stable disease ≥ 4 cycles). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI 4.4-7.6). Plasma levels of V were influenced by S, with a mean Cmax right after the infusion of 1301 ng/mL for V administered alone (cycle 1 day 1) versus 2039 ng/mL with concomitant S (cycle 2 day 1; paired t-test, p=0.004). Plasma levels of S and M2 showed a greater degree of interpatient variability, with no significant difference observed in the presence or absence of concomitant V. Conclusions: Combining S with V at full doses is feasible, but not devoid of toxicity. A PK interaction may contribute to the frequent dose reductions. A reasonable option in clinical practice is to start therapy at lower doses of both agents, with a gradual dose increase if well tolerated. Promising efficacy of this combination is documented, with a very high rate of disease control.

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 score0.015

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 integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology→French-language works237,207→