MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase I dose escalation pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study of weekly and twice weekly erlotinib in advanced stage solid malignancies

2007· article· en· W2967034948 on OpenAlexaff
S. Chia, K. N., Christian Kollmannsberger, Katherine Paton, K Bhagat, Susan D’Aloisio, Heidemarie Kletzl, Elke Zwanziger, Karen A. Gelmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRashPharmacokineticsErlotinibPharmacodynamicsToxicityInternal medicineAdverse effectGastroenterologySurgeryCancerEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3594 Background: Erlotinib is a potent oral TKI of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). At the current recommended daily dose of 150 mg/day there is activity in advanced stage NSCLC, but with frequent grade 1/2 rash and diarrhea. We performed a phase I dose escalation study of erlotinib with a once and twice weekly schedule to assess the PKs, PDs, and to determine if toxicities would be less on an intermittent but high dose schedule. Methods: A standard dose escalation schedule starting at 1,400 mg once/week and 600 mg twice/week with increments of 200 mg to 4 dose cohorts/schedule was utilized with three patients per cohort. A cycle consisted of 3 weeks of therapy. PKs were performed on cycle 1 and 2. PDs on normal skin punch biopsies were performed at baseline and after cycle 1. Tumour evaluation was done following every 2nd cycle. Subjects were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 32 patients were enrolled from Oct 2004-April 2006. Median age 58 years (28–74 years); median PS 1 (0–2); and median prior palliative systemic regimens 2 (0–6). In the once weekly schedule the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached with the top dose of 2,000 mg/week. A median of 2 cycles were delivered (1–14), with 3/13 patients achieving stable disease = 3 months. 4/13 patients had G1 rash and 6/13 patients G1 diarrhea during the first 2 cycles. In the twice weekly schedule the MTD was reached at 1,200 mg twice/week with 2/6 subjects experiencing G3 rash. The recommended dose level is 1,000 mg twice/week. A median of 4 cycles were delivered (1–28) with 2 partial responses, 1 minor response and 6 stable disease = 3 months out of 19 patients in total. G1/2 rash or diarrhea occurred in 13 and 9 patients respectively. No corneal toxicity was seen. The PK data demonstrated a variable but linear pattern. At 1,000 mg twice/week the median Cmax, Tmax and AUC0–24 hr was 6.28 μg/ml, 2 hours and 135 μg.h/ml respectively. PD analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: A once weekly and twice weekly high dose schedule of erlotinib is feasible, with MTD not reached in the once weekly schedule. A recommended dose of 1,000 mg twice/week has clinical activity, is generally well tolerated, and results in significantly higher systemic exposure than the 150 mg once daily dose. 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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.471 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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