NEOTROPICAL XENARTHRANS: a data set of occurrence of xenarthran species in the Neotropics

Xenarthrans – anteaters, sloths, and armadillos – have essential functions for ecosystem maintenance, such as insect control and nutrient cycling, playing key roles as ecosystem engineers. Because of habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting pressure, and conflicts with 24 domestic dogs, these species have been threatened locally, regionally, or even across their full distribution ranges. The Neotropics harbor 21 species of armadillos, ten anteaters, and six sloths. Our dataset includes the families Chlamyphoridae (13), Dasypodidae (7), Myrmecophagidae (3), Bradypodidae (4), and Megalonychidae (2). We have no occurrence data on Dasypus pilosus (Dasypodidae). Regarding Cyclopedidae, until recently, only one species was recognized, but new genetic studies have revealed that the group is represented by seven species. In this data-paper, we compiled a total of 42,528 records of 31 species, represented by occurrence and quantitative data, totaling 24,847 unique georeferenced records. The geographic range is from the south of the USA, Mexico, and Caribbean countries at the northern portion of the Neotropics, to its austral distribution in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. Regarding anteaters, Myrmecophaga tridactyla has the most records (n=5,941), and Cyclopes sp. has the fewest (n=240). The armadillo species with the most data is Dasypus novemcinctus (n=11,588), and the least recorded for Calyptophractus retusus (n=33). With regards to sloth species, Bradypus variegatus has the most records (n=962), and Bradypus pygmaeus has the fewest (n=12). Our main objective with Neotropical Xenarthrans is to make occurrence and quantitative data available to facilitate more ecological research, particularly if we integrate the xenarthran data with other datasets of Neotropical Series which will become available very soon (i.e. Neotropical Carnivores, Neotropical Invasive Mammals, and Neotropical Hunters and Dogs). Therefore, studies on trophic cascades, hunting pressure, habitat loss, fragmentation effects, species invasion, and climate change effects will be possible with the Neotropical Xenarthrans dataset

Predictive Value Of Phase I Trials For Safety In Later Trials And Final Approved Dose: Analysis Of 61 Approved Cancer Drugs

Phase I trials use a small number of patients to define amaximumtolerated dose (MTD) and the safety of new agents. We compared data from phase I and registration trials to determine whether early trials predicted later safety and final dose. We searched the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website for drugs approved in nonpediatric cancers (January 1990-October 2012). The recommended phase II dose (R2PD) and toxicities from phase I were compared with doses and safety in later trials. In 62 of 85 (73%) matched trials, the dose from the later trial was within 20% of the RP2D. In a multivariable analysis, phase I trials of targeted agents were less predictive of the final approved dose (OR, 0.2 for adopting ± 20% of the RP2D for targeted vs. other classes; P = 0.025). Of the 530 clinically relevant toxicities in later trials, 70% (n = 374) were described in phase I. A significant relationship (P = 0.0032) between increasing the number of patients in phase I (up to 60) and the ability to describe future clinically relevant toxicities was observed. Among 28,505 patients in later trials, the death rate that was related to drug was 1.41%. In conclusion, dosing based on phase I trials was associated with a lowtoxicity-related death rate in later trials. The ability to predict relevant toxicities correlates with thenumber of patients on the initial phase I trial. The final dose approved was within 20%of the RP2D in 73% of assessed trials. Clin Cancer Res; 20(2); 281-8. © 2013 AACR.202281288Critical role of phase 1 clinical trials in cancer treatment (1997) J Clin Oncol., 15, pp. 853-859. , American Society of Clinical OncologyPostel-Vinay, S., Gomez-Roca, C., Molife, L.R., Anghan, B., Levy, A., Judson, I., Phase 1 trials of molecularly targeted agents: Should we pay more attention to late toxicities? (2011) J Clin Oncol, 29, pp. 1728-1735Soria, J.C., Phase 1 trials of molecular targeted therapies: Are we evaluating toxicities properly? (2011) Eur J Cancer., 47, pp. 1443-1445Penel, N., Adenis, A., Clisant, S., Bonneterre, J., Nature and subjectivity of dose-limiting toxicities in contemporary phase 1 trials: Comparison of cytotoxic versus non-cytotoxic drugs (2011) Invest New Drugs, 29, pp. 1414-1419Iasonos, A., Gounder, M., Spriggs, D.R., Gerecitano, J.F., Hyman, D.M., Zohar, S., The impact of nondrug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase 1 trials (2012) Clin Cancer Res., 18, pp. 5179-5187Le Tourneau, C., Razak, A.R., Gan, H.K., Pop, S., Dieras, V., Tresca, P., Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase 1 cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: A review of the literature (2011) Eur J Cancer., 47, pp. 1468-1475FDA Approved Drug Products, , http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/, Administration UFaD, Available from:Postel-Vinay, S., Arkenau, H.T., Olmos, D., Ang, J., Barriuso, J., Ashley, S., Clinical benefit in phase I trials of novel molecularly targeted agents: Does dose matter? (2009) Br J Cancer., 100, pp. 1373-1378Adjei, A.A., What is the right dose? The elusive optimal biologic dose in phase 1 clinical trials (2006) J Clin Oncol., 24, pp. 4054-4055Sleijfer, S., Wiemer, E., Dose selection in phase 1 studies: Why we should always go for the top (2008) J Clin Oncol., 26, pp. 1576-1578Jain, R.K., Lee, J.J., Hong, D., Markman, M., Gong, J., Naing, A., Phase 1 oncology studies: Evidence that in the era of targeted therapies patients on lower doses do not fare worse (2010) Clin Cancer Res., 16, pp. 1289-1297Le Tourneau, C., Lee, J.J., Siu, L.L., Dose escalation methods in phase 1 cancer clinical trials (2009) J Natl Cancer Inst., 101, pp. 708-720Parulekar, W.R., Eisenhauer, E.A., Phase 1 trial design for solid tumor studies of targeted, non-cytotoxic agents: Theory and practice (2004) J Natl Cancer Inst., 96, pp. 990-997Niraula, S., Seruga, B., Ocana, A., Shao, T., Goldstein, R., Tannock, I.F., The price we pay for progress: A meta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs (2012) J Clin Oncol., 30, pp. 3012-3019Horstmann, E., McCabe, M.S., Grochow, L., Yamamoto, S., Rubinstein, L., Budd, T., Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials 1991 through 2002 (2005) N Engl J Med., 352, pp. 895-904Roberts, Jr.T.G., Goulart, B.H., Squitieri, L., Stallings, S.C., Halpern, E.F., Chabner, B.A., Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials (2004) JAMA, 292, pp. 2130-2140Olmos, D., A'Hern, R.P., Marsoni, S., Morales, R., Gomez-Roca, C., Verweij, J., Patient selection for oncology phase I trials: A multiinstitutional study of prognostic factors (2012) J Clin Oncol., 30, pp. 996-1004Mukherjee, S.D., Coombes, M.E., Levine, M., Cosby, J., Kowaleski, B., Arnold, A., A qualitative study evaluating causality attribution for serious adverse events during early-phase oncology clinical trials (2011) Invest New Drugs., 29, pp. 1013-1020Le Tourneau, C., Stathis, A., Vidal, L., Moore, M.J., Siu, L.L., Choice of starting dose for molecularly targeted agents evaluated in first-in-human phase I cancer clinical trials (2010) J Clin Oncol., 28, pp. 1401-1407Tolcher, A.W., Takimoto, C.H., Rowinsky, E.K., The multifunctional multiinstitutional and sometimes even global phase 1 study: A better life for phase 1 evaluations or just "living large"? (2002) J Clin Oncol., 20, pp. 4276-4278Booth, C.M., Calvert, A.H., Giaccone, G., Lobbezoo, M.W., Seymour, L.K., Eisenhauer, E.A., Endpoints and other considerations in phase 1 studies of targeted anticancer therapy: Recommendations from the task force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) (2008) Eur J Cancer., 44, pp. 19-2