Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33235994›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

Phase I/II study of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib for recurrent glioblastoma as part of a 3-arm sequential accrual clinical trial: NABTC 05-02.

Huanwen Chen, John Kuhn, Kathleen R Lamborn, Lauren E Abrey, Lisa M DeAngelis, Frank Lieberman, H Ian Robins, Susan M Chang, W K Alfred Yung, Jan Drappatz and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Potential Drug Synergy Through the ERBB2 Pathway in HER2+ Breast Tumors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Novel Concepts of Glioblastoma Therapy Concerning Its Heterogeneity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 12 institutions in 2 countries.

Huanwen ChenNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
John KuhnDivision of Pharmacology, University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Kathleen R LambornDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Lauren E AbreyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Lisa M DeAngelisMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Frank LiebermanDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
H Ian RobinsDepartments of Medicine, Human Oncology, and Neurology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Susan M ChangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
W K Alfred YungDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jan DrappatzDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Minesh P MehtaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida, USA.
Victor A LevinDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Kenneth AldapeLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Janet E DanceyQueen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
John J WrightInvestigational Drug Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Michael D PradosDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Timothy F CloughesyDepartment of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mark R GilbertNeuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNational Cancer Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USCenter for Neuro-Oncology · USMiami Heart Research Institute · USQueen's University · CAThe University of Texas at San Antonio · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI David A. Nathanson · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReceptor tyrosine kinases such as epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) and their downstream signaling pathways such as the Ras-Raf-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway play important roles in glioblastoma (GBM). This study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of sorafenib (Ras/Raf/MAPK inhibitor) in combination with erlotinib (EGFR inhibitor) for treatment of recurrent GBMs.

methodsPatients with recurrent GBM were eligible. A novel sequential accrual trial design was used, where patients were sequentially accrued into separate treatment arms in phase I and phase II investigations to optimize recruitment efficiency. In phase I, a standard 3 + 3 format was used to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and investigate pharmacokinetics. Phase II followed a 2-stage design with the primary endpoint being 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6).

resultsSixteen patients were recruited for phase I, and the MTD was determined to be sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and erlotinib 100 mg once daily. DLTs include Grade 3 hypertension, Grade 3 elevated liver transaminases, and Grade 4 elevated lipase. While erlotinib did not affect sorafenib levels, sorafenib reduced erlotinib levels. In phase II, 3 of 19 stage 1 participants were progression free at 6 months. This did not meet the predetermined efficacy endpoint, and the trial was terminated.

conclusionThis study identified the MTD and DLTs for sorafenib and erlotinib combination therapy for recurrent GBMs; however, efficacy data did not meet the primary endpoint. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of a novel sequential accrual clinical trial design that optimizes patient recruitment for multiarm studies, which is particularly effective for multicenter clinical trials.

Indexed as

erlotinibglioblastomamolecular therapynovel trial designsorafenib

Identifiers

PMID33235994
PMCPMC7668489
OpenAlexW3098262983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.