MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between capecitabine (X), oxaliplatin (O) and bevacizumab (A) when used in combination for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

2007· article· en· W3009982165 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara J. Brennan, Lillian L. Siu, Bindi Dhesy-Thind, C. Cripps, A. Gandhi, Maryline Abt, Katherine Smith, Karen Rittweger, Sohail Hussain, S Choudhury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineOxaliplatinIrinotecanBevacizumabInternal medicineColorectal cancerRegimenFOLFOXGastroenterologyPharmacokineticsOncologyCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2554 Background: X + O in combination (XELOX) has similar efficacy to FOLFOX-4 in untreated MCRC patients (pts) [1]. The addition of A to irinotecan/5-FU/LV improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival [2], and the potential improvement of adding A to XELOX in MCRC is currently being investigated. Here we present the first PK evaluation of the effects of X on O, O on X, X+A on O, and O+A on X in a multicenter open-label study of pts with untreated MCRC. Methods: Pts received treatment for up to 16 cycles with blood samples for PK analysis taken during cycles 1–3. Treatment: cycle 1: X 1000 mg/m2 orally on morning of d1, O 130 mg/m2 i.v. infusion d2, X 1000 mg/m2 bid orally d5–14, rest d15–21; cycle 2: O 130 mg/m2 i.v. infusion d1 + X 1000 mg/m2 bid orally d1–14, rest d15–21; cycle 3 (XOA): A 7.5 mg/kg i.v. infusion d1 + O 130 mg/m2 i.v. infusion d1 + X 1000 mg/m2 bid orally d1–14, q3w. Treatment with the XOA regimen continued for a further 13 cycles. Safety was evaluated throughout. Results: 36 pts were enrolled; 26 pts completed cycles 1–3 and were evaluable for PK analysis; all pts were evaluable for safety. Baseline characteristics were: M/F 42%/58%; median age 60 years (range 22–74). The primary parameter for PK analysis of X, AUC0-8 of 5’-DFUR, was slightly lower in cycle 2 d1 (XO) and cycle 3 d1 (XOA) vs. cycle 1 d1 (X) (10% and 13% lower, respectively, with CV 27–33%); a decrease in the Cmax of 5’-DFUR was also observed (26% and 36% lower, respectively, with CV 48–54%). However these differences were not considered clinically important. The primary parameter for PK analysis of O, AUC0-8 of free platinum, was very similar among cycle 2 d1 (XO), cycle 3 d1(XOA), and cycle 1 d2 (O), with geometric mean ratios very close to 1. Treatment with X, O and A in combination was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: No large differences in exposure of X or its metabolites, free platinum or total platinum occur when X, O and A are administered in combination. This provides further support for the development of the above dosing regimen in MCRC. References: 1. Cassidy J et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2084–91. 2. Hurwitz H et al. N Eng J Med 2004;350:2335–42. 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207