A phase II randomized study of oral seliciclib in patients with previously treated nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6026 Background: Seliciclib is a selective inhibitor of cyclin dependent kinases (CDKs) 2, 7 and 9. In a phase I study of 2 weeks of oral administration, clinical antitumor activity was observed in patients with treatment-naive nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and biological effects consistent with CDK inhibition were detected in tumor biopsy samples. We are conducting a multicenter, randomized phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prolonged administration of seliciclib in patients with previously treated NPC. The study has a lead-in phase where the safety and tolerability of 2 dosing schedules of seliciclib are to be confirmed in patients with advanced solid tumors (including NPC) before being used in the randomized phase of the study where only NPC patients are eligible to participate. The primary efficacy endpoint is 6-month progression free survival. Here we report interim findings from the lead-in phase. Methods: Eligible patients must be ≥18 years with previously treated NPC or other incurable solid tumors; must have measurable disease according to RECIST, ECOG 0–1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic and renal function. The planned sample size is 6 to 12 patients per dosing schedule. A dosing schedule is considered tolerable for proceeding to the randomized phase if <33% patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) during the first treatment cycle. Results: Twenty-three patients (age 38 - 74) were enrolled and treated. DLTs were observed in 4 patients: grade 3 increase in ALT or AST (n=3), and treatment delay > 2 weeks for grade 1 creatinine (n=1). Common adverse events (all grades, regardless of causality) included fatigue, nausea/vomiting, constipation, cough, fever, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, and elevation in ALT/AST, most of which were mild to moderate in intensity. Conclusions: These interim data confirm that both dosing schedules are tolerable for proceeding to the randomized phase. Majority of stable disease occurred in NPC patients. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".