MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety profile of INT230-6, a novel intratumoral (IT) formulation, during injections into a variety of refractory deep and superficial tumors with evidence of tumor regression and immune activation.

2019· article· en· W2946893188 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony B. El-Khoueiry, Jacob Thomas, Diana L. Hanna, Lillian L. Siu, Nilofer S. Azad, Giles F. Whalen, Lewis H. Bender, Ian Walters, Anthony J. Olszanski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTolerabilityAdverse effectCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsPharmacokineticsLeukopeniaRefractory (planetary science)CancerInternal medicineGastroenterologyPharmacologyPathologyUrologyToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2602 Background: INT230-6 is comprised of cisplatin (CIS), vinblastine (VIN) and an amphiphilic penetration enhancer which facilitates dispersion throughout tumors and diffusion into cancer cells. In preclinical experiments, INT230-6 led to necrosis and recruitment of immune cells with high rates of complete responses of injected and bystander tumors. This abstract highlights the safety and early pharmacodynamic activity of this approach. Methods: Patients with solid tumors that progressed on all standard treatments were enrolled. Dose escalation occurred by increasing number of tumors injected, loading per tumor, and total dose. INT230-6 was injected once every 2 weeks in multiple lesions for 5 sessions. Patients were monitored for safety and tolerability weekly. Pharmacokinetic(Pk) samples and peripheral blood were collected for flow cytometry and circulating cytokines. Pre and on study biopsies are ongoing. Results: 28 patients (14 unique cancer types) receiving a median of 3 prior treatments were enrolled. Doses from 0.3 ml up to-80 ml of INT230-6 were given into single lesions with some patients receiving a total of 120 mL ( = 9.7mg VIN exceeding the IV VIN dose) without significant systemic absorption or typical cytotoxic adverse events. Pk analysis suggests that systemic exposure of VIN or CIS is ~10% of injected. No DLT’s or drug-related SAE’s reported. The most frequent adverse event was grade 1 or 2 pain at injected site. Superficial tumors showed signs of response including flattening, areas of necrosis and ulceration. Tumor reduction, apparent in in both injected and bystander tumors, may indicate an abscopal effect. An increase > 30% in CD8 T-cells was seen in the blood of 3/9 evaluable patients. Conclusions: INT230-6 was safe and well tolerated in > 100 injections (28 patients) with encouraging activity and pharmacodynamic effects in advanced refractory tumors. Additional analysis of immune cells from on study biopsies will be presented. A new cohort will evaluate combination with an anti-PD1 antibody to understand if local tumor destruction can increase systemic antigen load, increase immune cell recognition and initiate a systemic immune response. Clinical trial information: NCT 03058289.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology→French-language works237,207→