Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Br J Cancer ; 123(10): 1496-1501, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32868897

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the correlation between preclinical toxicity found in animal models (mouse, rat, dog and monkey) and clinical toxicity reported in patients participating in Phase 1 oncology clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained from two major early-Phase clinical trial centres, preclinical toxicities from investigational brochures and clinical toxicities from published Phase 1 trials for 108 drugs, including small molecules, biologics and conjugates. Toxicities were categorised according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Human toxicities were also categorised based on their reported clinical grade (severity). Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated to determine the probability that clinical studies would/would not show a particular toxicity category given that it was seen in preclinical toxicology analysis. Statistical analyses also included kappa statistics, and Matthews (MCC) and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Overall, animal toxicity did not show strong correlation with human toxicity, with a median PPV of 0.65 and NPV of 0.50. Similar results were obtained based on kappa statistics and MCC. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to assess more novel approaches to the type and conduct of preclinical toxicity studies in an effort to provide better predictive value for human investigation.


Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase I como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Evaluación Preclínica de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Animales , Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Ensayos Clínicos Fase I como Asunto/normas , Modelos Animales de Enfermedad , Perros , Evaluación Preclínica de Medicamentos/normas , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Haplorrinos , Humanos , Ratones , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/patología , Pronóstico , Ratas
2.
J Immunother Precis Oncol ; 3(3): 121-127, 2020 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35663256

RESUMEN

A major breakthrough in cancer treatment was ushered in by the development of immune checkpoint blockade therapy such as anti-CTLA4 antibody and anti-PD-1 and anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 antibodies that are now approved for use in an increasing number of malignancies. Despite the relative success of immune checkpoint inhibitors with certain tumor types, many patients still fail to respond to such therapies, and the field is actively trying to understand the mechanisms of resistance, intrinsic or acquired, to immune checkpoint blockade. Herein, we discuss the roles that somatic genomic mutations in oncogenic pathways play in immune editing, as well as some of the current approaches toward improving response to immunotherapy.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA