Phase II study of CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We report results from a phase II study of CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in advanced NPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NPC and 1-2 prior treatment regimens received CC-486 300 mg daily on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The first 6 patients of Asian-Pacific Islander (API) ethnicity received a reduced dose of 200 mg to preserve safety and tolerability; if well tolerated, subsequent API patients received CC-486 300 mg. The study could advance to stage 2 if > 4 patients achieved a response. Co-primary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (independent review). Key secondary end-points were overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Owing to faster-than-anticipated enrolment, 36 patients, including 13 of API ethnicity, were enrolled; the median age was 54.0 years. Most patients were male (81%) and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1 (97%). Among 25 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 12%; the median progression-free and overall survival were 4.7 and 18.0 months, respectively. The most common grade III/IV treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (33%) and febrile neutropenia (11%). Twenty-one posttreatment deaths, primarily due to progressive disease or disease complications, and 1 on-treatment death (epistaxis, unrelated to study drug) occurred. The study did not advance to stage 2. CONCLUSION: CC-486 did not show sufficient clinical activity to support further development as monotherapy in this patient population. The safety profile of CC-486 in NPC was consistent with that in other solid tumours.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".