MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition: Phase I study combining cetuximab (C225) and erlotinib (E) in advanced solid tumors

2009· article· en· W2966944913 on OpenAlexaff
Randeep Sangha, Chun An Ho, Laurel Beckett, Denise Lau, Primo N. Lara, Angela M. Davies, Philip C. Mack, G. M. Koslan, William Holland, David R. Gandara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCetuximabMedicineErlotinibRashMucositisEpidermal growth factor receptorInternal medicineNeutropeniaToxicityPharmacologyOncologyCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3552 Background: The EGFR pathway is implicated in lung tumorigenesis by aberrantly regulating cell proliferation, apoptosis, and invasion. Maximal blockade of the EGFR can be achieved by dually inhibiting the extracellular and intracellular domain with the monoclonal antibody C225 and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, E. Given preclinical synergy of C225 and E, we hypothesized this combination would be feasible and result in improved therapeutic benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors were enrolled using a standard phase I dose escalation design. C225 was administered IV weekly, with no loading dose, and E given orally daily on a 28-day cycle. Four dose levels were studied: C225 150 mg/m2, E 100 mg; C225 200 mg/m2, E 100 mg; C225 250 mg/m2, E 100 mg; and C225 250 mg/m2, E 150 mg. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as: grade (Gr) 4 platelets, Gr 3 platelets with bleeding, febrile neutropenia, ≥ Gr 3 ANC with documented infection, or clinically significant > Gr 3 non-hematologic toxicity. Gr 3 rash based solely on pain or Gr 3 hypersensitivity infusion reactions were not considered DLTs. Results: 18 pts were treated: 13 NSCLC, 3 H&N, 1 pancreas, and 1 invasive thymoma. Characteristics: Age range 41–80, median 62.5; Gender: 7 M; ECOG PS ≤1 = 17; Prior chemo ≤1 = 10. Planned dose escalation was completed without reaching the MTD. The highest dose level was expanded to 6 pts. A single DLT for Gr 3 diarrhea was observed at the second dose level (C225 200 mg/m2, E 100 mg). Gr 3/4 toxicities were: lymphopenia (3), acneiform rash (3), nausea/vomiting (3), pruritis (1), fatigue (1), diarrhea (1), confusion (1), hypomagnesemia (1), hypocalcemia (1), hyponatremia (1), hyperkalemia (1), and anemia (1). Of 13 evaluable pts, 1 PR (NSCLC) and 4 with SD (2 NSCLC, 2 H&N). Median cycles: 2 (1–14) with one NSCLC pt on therapy for 8 cycles and one H&N pt receiving 14 cycles. Biomarker analysis of EGFR polymorphisms, gene copy number via FISH, and protein expression will be presented, along with the mutation status of EGFR and KRAS. Conclusions: 1) Dual EGFR inhibition with C225 250 mg/m2 weekly and E 150 mg daily is feasible, well tolerated, and the recommended phase II dose. 2) Efficacy of this combination in NSCLC is being evaluated in a phase II trial. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→