A Phase 1/1b tolerability study of rilotumumab alone or in combination with cisplatin and capecitabine in Japanese patients with gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety (including adverse events and dose-limiting toxicities [DLTs]), tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of the investigational MET inhibitor rilotumumab alone in patients with advanced solid tumors (Part 1) or in combination with cisplatin plus capecitabine (CX) in patients with MET-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (Part 2). METHODS: Adult patients received 10 or 20 mg/kg intravenous (IV) rilotumumab every 2 weeks (Part 1) or 15 mg/kg IV rilotumumab every 3 weeks plus 80 mg/m2 cisplatin on Day 1 and 1000 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily on Days 1-14 of every 21-day cycle (Part 2). RESULTS: Nine patients enrolled in Part 1; 12 patients enrolled in Part 2. One DLT occurred (Grade 3 decreased appetite and stomatitis [Part 2]). Adverse events related to any treatment occurred in 17 patients (81%) and were Grade ≥3 in nine patients (43%). Rilotumumab pharmacokinetics appeared linear, and exposure was unaffected by CX. No patient who received rilotumumab monotherapy in Part 1 had a response. In Part 2, five of eight patients (63%) with measureable disease at baseline had a partial response and two patients (25%) had stable disease; median (95% CI) progression-free survival was 7.0 (2.4-15.4) months; overall survival was 18.2 (5.6-20.4) months. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with CX, rilotumumab appeared tolerable and showed antitumor activity in Japanese patients with MET-positive gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. However, owing to the results of recent Phase 3 trials of MET inhibitors (including rilotumumab), further development of rilotumumab in this setting is not being pursued. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01791374.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".