Data from Two-Stage Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Intratumoral Reovirus Type 3 Dearing and Palliative Radiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: To determine the safety and feasibility of combining intratumoral reovirus and radiotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and to assess viral biodistribution, reoviral replication in tumors, and antiviral immune responses. Experimental Design: Patients with measurable disease amenable to palliative radiotherapy were enrolled. In the first stage, patients received radiotherapy (20 Gy in five fractions) plus two intratumoral injections of RT3D at doses between 1 × 108 and 1 × 1010 TCID50. In the second stage, the radiotherapy dose was increased (36 Gy in 12 fractions) and patients received two, four, or six doses of RT3D at 1 × 1010 TCID50. End points were safety, viral replication, immunogenicity, and antitumoral activity. Results: Twenty-three patients with various solid tumors were treated. Dose-limiting toxicity was not seen. The most common toxicities were grade 2 (or lower) pyrexia, influenza-like symptoms, vomiting, asymptomatic lymphopenia, and neutropenia. There was no exacerbation of the acute radiation reaction. Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) studies of blood, urine, stool, and sputum were negative for viral shedding. In the low-dose (20 Gy in five fractions) radiation group, two of seven evaluable patients had a partial response and five had stable disease. In the high-dose (36 Gy in 12 fractions) radiation group, five of seven evaluable patients had partial response and two stable disease. Conclusions: The combination of intratumoral RT3D and radiotherapy was well tolerated. The favorable toxicity profile and lack of vector shedding means that this combination should be evaluated in newly diagnosed patients receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. Clin Cancer Res; 16(11); 3067–77. ©2010 AACR.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".