Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy.

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in the justice system, but eyewitnesses can make errors, often with profound consequences. We used findings from basic science and innovative technologies to develop and test whether a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses can rotate and dynamically view the lineup faces from different angles, improves witness discrimination accuracy compared with a widely used procedure in laboratories and police forces around the world-the static frontal-pose photo lineup. No novel procedure has previously been shown to improve witness discrimination accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 220) identified culprits from sequentially presented interactive lineups or static frontal-pose photo lineups. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 8,507) identified culprits from interactive lineups that were either presented sequentially, simultaneously wherein the faces could be moved independently, or simultaneously wherein the faces moved jointly into the same angle. Sequential interactive lineups enhanced witness discrimination accuracy compared with static photo lineups, and simultaneous interactive lineups enhanced witness discrimination accuracy compared with sequential interactive lineups. These finding were true both when participants viewed suspects who were of the same or different ethnicity/race as themselves. Our findings exemplify how basic science can be used to address the important applied policy issue on how best to conduct a police lineup and reduce eyewitness errors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Phase 2 study evaluating intermittent and continuous linsitinib and weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian epithelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Linsitinib, an oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor, in combination with weekly paclitaxel, may improve clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT00889382) randomized patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (1:1:1) to receive either oral intermittent linsitinib (600mg once daily on Days 1-3 per week) combined with paclitaxel (80mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15; Arm A) or continuous linsitinib (150mg twice daily) in combination with paclitaxel (Arm B), or paclitaxel alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 152 women were randomized to treatment (n=51 Arm A; n=51 Arm B, n=50 Arm C). In combination with paclitaxel, neither intermittent linsitinib (median PFS 2.8months; 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.5-4.4) nor continuous linsitinib (median PFS 4.2months; 95% CI:2.8-5.1) improved PFS over weekly paclitaxel alone (median PFS 5.6months; 95% CI:3.2-6.9). No improvement in ORR, DCR, or OS in either linsitinib dosing schedule was observed compared with paclitaxel alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including all-grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, were higher among patients receiving intermittent linsitinib compared with the other treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Addition of intermittent or continuous linsitinib with paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer compared with paclitaxel alone.

Phase 2 Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Linsitinib (OSI-906) or Placebo in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: First-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR-activating mutations improves outcomes compared with chemotherapy, but resistance develops in most patients. Compensatory signaling through type 1 insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) may contribute to resistance; dual blockade of IGF-1R and EGFR may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of linsitinib, a dual IGF-1R and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in chemotherapy-naive patients with EGFR-mutation positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients received linsitinib 150 mg twice daily or placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg once daily on continuous 21-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: After randomization of 88 patients (44 each arm), the trial was unblinded early owing to inferiority in the linsitinib arm. The median progression-free survival for the linsitinib versus the placebo group was 8.4 months versus 12.4 months (hazard ratio, 1.37; P = .29). Overall response rate (47.7% vs. 75.0%; P = .02) and disease control rate (77.3% vs. 95.5%; P = .03) were also inferior. Whereas most adverse events were ≤ grade 2, linsitinib plus erlotinib was associated with increased adverse events that led to decreased erlotinib exposure (median days, 228 vs. 305). No drug-drug interaction was suggested by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results. CONCLUSION: Adding linsitinib to erlotinib resulted in inferior outcomes compared with erlotinib alone. Further understanding of the signaling pathways and a biomarker that can predict efficacy is needed prior to further clinical development of IGF-1R inhibitors in lung cancer.

Mass balance, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism of linsitinib in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study characterized the pharmacokinetics, mass balance, routes and extent of elimination, metabolites, and safety of a single oral dose of (14)C-linsitinib, an IGF-1R/IR inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. The tolerability of linsitinib after multiple-dose administration was assessed in those patients who wished to continue treatment beyond the single (14)C-linsitinib dose. METHODS: Five patients received a single oral dose of 150 mg (14)C-linsitinib, followed by collection of blood, plasma, urine, and feces for 10 days. The collected material was analyzed for total radioactivity, linsitinib, and metabolites. The safety of 150 mg of unlabeled linsitinib administered twice daily until disease progression was also assessed. RESULTS: The median time to reach the maximum plasma concentration of linsitinib was 3.0 h, median maximum plasma concentration was 1789 ng/mL, median terminal half-life was 2.4 h, and median apparent oral clearance was 12.45 L/h. After a single dose of (14)C-linsitinib, 5.44 and 76.4 % of mean total radioactivity administered were recovered in urine and feces, respectively. Eighteen linsitinib metabolites (M1-M18) were detected in plasma, urine, and feces samples, and their structures were elucidated. The main metabolic reactions of linsitinib in humans were oxidation and sulfate conjugation. Linsitinib was well tolerated after a single dose of (14)C-linsitinib, and fatigue was the most frequent adverse event following multiple doses of unlabeled linsitinib. CONCLUSIONS: (14)C-linsitinib is rapidly absorbed and extensively metabolized. Linsitinib excretion via bile into feces is the predominant elimination route from plasma with minor renal elimination.