Phase I dose-escalation trial of the oral AKT inhibitor uprosertib in combination with the oral MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with solid tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II doses of trametinib plus uprosertib (GSK2141795) in patients with solid tumors likely to be sensitive to MEK and/or AKT inhibition. METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study in patients with triple-negative breast cancer or BRAF-wild type advanced melanoma. The primary outcome of the expansion study was investigator-assessed response. Among 126 enrolled patients, 63 received continuous oral daily dosing of trametinib and uprosertib, 29 received various alternative dosing schedules, and 34 were enrolled into expansion cohorts. Doses tested in the expansion cohort were trametinib 1.5 mg once daily (QD) + uprosertib 50 mg QD. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with those reported in monotherapy studies but occurred at lower doses and with greater severity. Diarrhea was the most common dose-limiting toxicity; diarrhea and rash were particularly difficult to tolerate. Overall, 59% and 6% of patients reported AEs with a maximum severity of grade 3 and 4, respectively. Poor tolerability prevented adequate delivery of uprosertib with trametinib at a concentration predicted to have clinical activity. The study was terminated early based on futility in the continuous-dosing expansion cohorts and a lack of pharmacological or therapeutic advantage with intermittent dosing. The objective response rate was < 5% (1 complete response, 5 partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and intermittent dosing of trametinib in combination with uprosertib was not tolerated, and minimal clinical activity was observed in all schedules tested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".