Phase I study of vinblastine and temsirolimus in pediatric patients with recurrent or refractory solid tumors: Canadian Cancer Trials Group Study IND.218
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Combining mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and vinca alkaloids has shown therapeutic synergy in xenograft models of pediatric cancers. This phase I study assessed safety and toxicity of temsirolimus in combination with vinblastine in children. Procedure Patients ≥ 1 and ≤ 18 years with recurrent/refractory solid or CNS tumors were eligible. Vinblastine (4 mg/m2) and temsirolimus (15 mg/m2) were administered i.v. weekly, with planned dose escalation of vinblastine using a rolling six phase I design. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were collected. Results Seven patients with median age 12 years (range, 8–18 years) were enrolled; all were evaluable for toxicity and six for response. At dose level 1, four of six patients developed grade 3 mucositis, of which one met duration criteria for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). Four patients required dose omissions for grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity, including one prolonged neutropenia DLT. A subsequent patient was enrolled on dose level −2 (temsirolimus 10 mg/m2, vinblastine 4 mg/m2) with no protocol‐related toxicity > grade 1, except grade 2 neutropenia. Two serious adverse events (SAE) occurred—an allergic reaction to temsirolimus (grade 2) and an intracranial hemorrhage in a CNS tumor patient (grade 3)—unlikely related to study therapy. Soluble VEGFR2 was reduced at cycle 1, day 36 in keeping with inhibition of angiogenesis. Four patients achieved prolonged stable disease for a median of 5.0 months (range, 3.1–8.3 months). Conclusion The combination of weekly temsirolimus (15 mg/m2) and vinblastine (4 mg/m2) exceeds the maximum tolerated dose in children, with frequent oral mucositis and hematologic toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".