Phase III Study Comparing Oral Topotecan to Intravenous Docetaxel in Patients With Pretreated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared oral topotecan versus intravenous (IV) docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC, performance status < or = 2, who had received only one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomly assigned to treatment with oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or IV docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 829 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, 1-year survival rates were 25.1% with topotecan and 28.7% with docetaxel. The difference of -3.6% (95% CI, -9.59% to 2.48%) met the predefined criteria for noninferiority of topotecan relative to docetaxel because the lower limit of the 95% CI was above -10%. Median survival was 27.9 weeks with topotecan and 30.7 weeks with docetaxel. Although not statistically significant (log-rank P = .057), the higher survival rate with docetaxel was maintained across the entire treatment period. The median time to progression was 11.3 weeks with topotecan versus 13.1 weeks with docetaxel (log-rank P = .02). The overall response rate was 5% in each group. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with docetaxel (60% v 50%). Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with topotecan (26% v 10% and 26% v 7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan provides activity in the treatment of relapsed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Both regimens were well tolerated with differing safety profiles. Topotecan may provide an option for patients who desire an orally available treatment after relapse.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".