MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase I study of the combination of intravenous Reolysin (REO) and gemcitabine (GEM) in patients (pts) with advanced cancer

2009· article· en· W2610814060 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik‐Tobias Arkenau, JEFF EVANS, M. Lokelma, Patricia Roxburgh, Rosie Morisson, Matthew Coffey, George M. Gill, K.L. Mettinger, Bruce Thompson, Johann S. de Bono

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsOncolytics Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineToxicityInternal medicineClinical endpointPharmacokineticsCancerPharmacologyOncologyGastroenterologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3584 Background: REO (reovirus serotype 3) is a Dearing strain, naturally occurring, non-enveloped virus with limited pathogenecity in humans. REO replicates specifically in transformed Ras-activated cells due to inhibition of the dsRNA-activated protein kinase, resulting in cell-lysis. GEM has shown efficacy in a wide range of tumors commonly driven by activated Ras, and causes cell cycle arrest in S phase. Results from isobologram analysis suggest potential synergies of REO and GEM. Methods: This open-label, dose-escalating, two-centre phase-I trial studied the combination of iv REO, d1–5 and iv GEM, d1 and 8, qw3. The REO starting dose was 3x109 TCID50 over 1-hour, increasing in successive cohorts and GEM was given at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg/m2 over 30-min. Endpoints were the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose limiting toxicity (DLT), and safety profile of REOGEM and to establish a RP2D. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate the immune response, to evaluate pharmacokinetics of REOGEM and to describe any antitumor activity. Results: Since July 2007, 15 heavily pre-treated pts with disease progression prior to trial entry (9M/6F, median age 56 years, ECOG 0/1: 3/12) were entered into this trial. After 2 pts had Grade >3 toxicities during the first cycle (1 pt: GGT and Trop-I increase and PD; 1 pt: Trop-I increase and unspecific ST-changes) considered probably related to both agents the protocol was amended and the dose of REO was adjusted to 1x109 TCID50, d1 of each cycle (C-1) and increased in subsequent cohorts to 3x109, 1x1010, and 3x1010 TCID50. In total 45 cycles were administered (median 3) resulting in mild and expected toxicities including fever, headaches, rhinorrhea, fatigue and myelosupression. The MTD was not reached. Of the 10 pts evaluable for response, 2 pts (breast and nasopharyngeal) had PR and/or clinical response and 5 pts had SD for 4–8 cycles, amounting for a total disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 70%. Conclusions: The combination of REOGEM was well tolerated and resulted in disease control for a majority of pts. A RP2D, of REO 3x1010, d1 and GEM 1000mg/m2, d1 and 8, qw3, was recommended and phase-2 trials are underway. [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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.405 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicVirus-based gene therapy research→French-language works237,207→