Phase I feasibility study of Magnetic Resonance guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound-induced hyperthermia, Lyso-Thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in <i>de novo</i> stage IV breast cancer patients: study protocol of the i-GO study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In breast cancer, local tumour control is thought to be optimised by administering higher local levels of cytotoxic chemotherapy, in particular doxorubicin. However, systemic administration of higher dosages of doxorubicin is hampered by its toxic side effects. In this study, we aim to increase doxorubicin deposition in the primary breast tumour without changing systemic doxorubicin concentration and thus without interfering with systemic efficacy and toxicity. This is to be achieved by combining Lyso-Thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin (LTLD, ThermoDox, Celsion Corporation, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA) with mild local hyperthermia, induced by Magnetic Resonance guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU). When heated above 39.5°C, LTLD releases a high concentration of doxorubicin intravascularly within seconds. In the absence of hyperthermia, LTLD leads to a similar biodistribution and antitumour efficacy compared with conventional doxorubicin. Methods and analysis This is a single-arm phase I study in 12 chemotherapy-naïve patients with de novo stage IV HER2-negative breast cancer. Previous endocrine treatment is allowed. Study treatment consists of up to six cycles of LTLD at 21-day intervals, administered during MR-HIFU-induced hyperthermia to the primary tumour. We will aim for 60 min of hyperthermia at 40°C–42°C using a dedicated MR-HIFU breast system (Profound Medical, Mississauga, Canada). Afterwards, intravenous cyclophosphamide will be administered. Primary endpoints are safety, tolerability and feasibility. The secondary endpoint is efficacy, assessed by radiological response. This approach could lead to optimal loco-regional control with less extensive or even no surgery, in de novo stage IV patients and in stage II/III patients allocated to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ethics and dissemination This study has obtained ethical approval by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht (Protocol NL67422.041.18, METC number 18-702). Informed consent will be obtained from all patients before study participation. Results will be published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration numbers NCT03749850 , EudraCT 2015-005582-23.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".