MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase II study of pemetrexed and doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

2007· article· en· W2888335003 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Błasińska-Morawiec, M. Martín, Fernando Palacios Salas, S. Falcon, Janusz Rolski, Bruno Lemos Ferrari, Nelson Guedez, Lorinda Simms, Stephen Gulyas, Allen S. Melemed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic breast cancerPemetrexedDoxorubicinNeutropeniaBreast cancerInternal medicineChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchFebrile neutropeniaOncologyGastroenterologySurgeryCancerCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1047 Background: Pemetrexed has a single-agent activity in MBC while doxorubicin is an established agent in breast cancer chemotherapy. This phase II study investigated the combination in patients with advanced or MBC who had not been previously treated with anthracyclines. Primary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate. Methods: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (10-min intravenous infusion) followed by doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1 of six 21-day cycles. Additional cycles were permitted based upon: absence of progressive disease, adequate cardiac function, and a maximum cumulative limit of doxorubicin 450 mg/m2. Routine folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation was given to all patients. Results: A total of 79 women with advanced or MBC were enrolled at 15 centers in 7 countries. Major racial groups were Caucasians (50.6%) and Hispanics (24.1%). Median age was 55 years (range, 26–79) and most (91.1%) had performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had either metastatic (72.2 %) or locally advanced disease (27.9%). Sixteen (20.3%) patients had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. A median of 6 cycles (range, 1–9) was delivered. During the 438 cycles, no doses were omitted, and 7 doses were reduced (3 for pemetrexed, 4 for doxorubicin). A total of 129 doses (29.5%) were delayed, primarily due to scheduling conflicts (84 doses) and neutropenia (19 doses). The relative dose intensity for both drugs was 93%. Overall response rate was 60.8% (95% CI, 49.1–71.6) with complete response in 8 patients (10.1%), partial response in 40 patients (50.6%), and stable disease in 20 patients (25.3%). Maximum CTC grade 3 and 4 toxicities observed in >5% patients were neutropenia (19 patients, 24.1%), leukopenia (8 patients, 10.1%), and vomiting (5 patients, 6.3%). Five deaths occurred during study treatment, 2 of which had causes (diarrhea, pneumonia) possibly related to the study drugs. One patient had resting left ventricular ejection fraction decreased to <50% after 6 cycles and did not receive further treatment. Conclusions: The combination of pemetrexed and doxorubicin was well tolerated and had promising response in patients with advanced or MBC. Survival and time-to-event results are forthcoming. 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 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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.433 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207