MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract CT047: Phase 1 dose-escalation study of the CDK inhibitor dinaciclib in combination with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in patients with advanced solid tumors

2017· article· en· W2742102900 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey I. Shapiro, T. Khanh, Sara M. Tolaney, John Hilton, James M. Cleary, Andrew Wolanski, Brian Beardslee, Faith Hassinger, Ketki Bhushan, Dongpo Cai, Elizabeth Downey, Solida Pruitt-Thompson, Suzanne Barry, Bose Kochupurakkal, Joseph Geradts, Christine Unitt, Alan D. D’Andrea, Alona Muzikansky, Richard Piekarz, L. Austin Doyle, Jeffrey G. Supko

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeliparibPARP inhibitorMedicineNeutropeniaFebrile neutropeniaMucositisInternal medicineOncologyNauseaPharmacologyChemotherapyPoly ADP ribose polymeraseChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Although PARP inhibition is effective against HR repair-deficient cancers, efficacy is limited by HR proficiency, whether present de novo or as a result of acquired resistance, prompting HR disrupting strategies to sensitize tumor cells. Inhibition of CDK1 and CDK12 compromise HR by blocking BRCA1 phosphorylation, affecting recruitment to sites of DNA damage, and by reducing HR gene expression, respectively. Dinaciclib is a pan-CDK inhibitor that inhibits both CDK1 and CDK12 at nanomolar potency. We conducted a Phase 1 study combining dinaciclib and veliparib in patients with advanced solid tumors who are not germline BRCA carriers. Methods: A 3+3 design was utilized. Veliparib was administered twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. Dinaciclib was administered intravenously on days 8 and 22. In part 1A, escalation followed a two-dimensional schema, utilizing doses of dinaciclib between 10 - 45 mg/m2 and veliparib between 20 - 120 mg. In part 1B, veliparib was escalated between 200 mg - 400 mg with dinaciclib maintained at 30 mg/m2. PK and PD assessments were performed at baseline, after veliparib, and after the combination. Preliminary Results: Sixty-three heavily pretreated patients were enrolled in part 1A (n = 39) and 1B (n = 24). Thirty-four patients had breast or gynecologic malignancies. The MTD was 400 mg twice-daily veliparib with dinaciclib at 30 mg/m2. DLTs included G4 neutropenia > 7 days (n =1), febrile neutropenia (n = 1), mucositis (n = 1) and fatigue (n = 1). Common drug-related toxicities were neutropenia (78%), nausea (75%), fatigue (67%), electrolyte abnormalities (59%), elevated liver function tests (57%), diarrhea (52%), lymphopenia (52%), anemia (43%), dehydration (37%), anorexia (30%), vomiting (29%), hypoalbuminemia (29%), dizziness (29%), headache (22%), mucositis (18%), elevated creatinine (16%), alopecia (16%), thrombocytopenia (14%), abdominal pain (13%), insomnia (13%), and dysgeusia (11%). The median number of cycles completed was 2 (r: 1 - 10). One patient with TNBC achieved complete resolution of axillary adenopathy lasting > 8 months. Twenty-four patients (38%) had stable disease as the best response, with 9 progression-free > 4 months (TNBC, gynecologic and thymic ca). Paired tumor biopsies from one patient demonstrated reduced Ki-67 and increased gamma-H2AX staining after combination treatment compared to after veliparib alone. Conclusions: Dinaciclib administered at doses known to produce PD effects is tolerable with full dose veliparib. Anti-tumor activity is limited in non-BRCA carriers, possibly related to intermittent administration of a CDK inhibitor with known short half-life. Additional patients are being enrolled utilizing dinaciclib in more dose-intense schedules. Citation Format: Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Khanh T. Do, Sara M. Tolaney, John F. Hilton, James M. Cleary, Andrew Wolanski, Brian Beardslee, Faith Hassinger, Ketki Bhushan, Dongpo Cai, Elizabeth Downey, Solida Pruitt-Thompson, Suzanne M. Barry, Bose Kochupurakkal, Joseph Geradts, Christine Unitt, Alan D. D'Andrea, Alona Muzikansky, Richard Piekarz, L. Austin Doyle, Jeffrey Supko. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of the CDK inhibitor dinaciclib in combination with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in patients with advanced solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT047. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT047

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207