MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized phase II trial of pemetrexed/cisplatin with or without CBP501 in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

2012· article· en· W2606176026 on OpenAlexaff
Lee M. Krug, Antoinette J. Wozniak, Hedy L. Kindler, Ronald Feld, Marianna Koczywas, José Luis Morero, Cristina P. Rodriguez, Helen J. Ross, Julie E. Bauman, Sergey Orlov, John C. Ruckdeschel, Alain C. Mita, Luis Fein, Cristian Fernández, Robert D. Hall, Takumi Kawabe, Sunil Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPemetrexedMedicineCisplatinMesotheliomaInternal medicineClinical endpointCarboplatinProgression-free survivalChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchOncologyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7029 Background: CBP501, a synthetic duodecapeptide, enhances the cytotoxicity of cisplatin in cell lines and xenografts, including NCI-H226 human mesothelioma. CBP501 increases cisplatin influx into tumor cells through an interaction with calmodulin, and inhibits cell cycle progression by abrogating DNA repair at the G2 checkpoint. Phase I clinical trials combining CBP501 with cisplatin alone or with pemetrexed showed acceptable safety profiles and suggested activity. The most common toxicity of CBP501 is infusion-related urticaria, which is easily managed with diphenhydramine. Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable MPM were stratified by histology (epithelioid vs other) and performance status (PS 0-1 vs 2) and randomized 2:1 to Arm A: pemetrexed/cisplatin plus CBP501 25 mg/m2 IV (42 pts planned), or Arm B: pemetrexed/cisplatin alone at standard doses (21 pts planned). Patients continued on treatment until progression or intolerance; no maintenance therapy was delivered. The primary endpoint is progression free survival (PFS) in Arm A; if > 23 of the 42 patients remain free of progression more than 4 months, the combination will be deemed worthy of further study. In addition to standard CT imaging to assess response and PFS, PET scans, pulmonary function tests, and mesothelin levels were performed. Results: Enrollment was completed in October 2011. 65 pts from 14 institutions were randomized, and 63 were treated. Patient characteristics in the two arms were similar and as follows: median age 65, 82% male, 71% epithelioid histology, 8% PS2. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were uncommon, no different than expected from standard chemotherapy, and comparable in the two arms. 70% of patients treated with CBP501 had infusion reactions, all grade 1-2. The best overall response rate in evaluable patients (modified RECIST, investigator assessed) was 12/37 (32%) (95% CI 18-50) in Arm A, and 3/22 (14%) (95% CI 3-35) in Arm B. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 5.5 in Arm A, 5 in Arm B. Conclusions: Data on the primary endpoint of PFS in Arm A are maturing and will be presented at the meeting.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207