MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized phase III study of weekly <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (MPACT).

2013· article· en· W2218904682 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel D. Von Hoff, Thomas J. Ervin, Francis P. Arena, E. Gabriela Chiorean, Jeffrey R. Infante, Malcolm J. Moore, Thomas E. Seay, Sergei Tjulandin, Wen Wee, Mansoor N. Saleh, Marion Harris, Michele Reni, Ramesh K. Ramanathan, Josep Tabernero, Manuel Hidalgo, Eric Van Cutsem, David Goldstein, Xinyu Wei, J. L. Mesías Iglesias, Markus F. Renschler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineInternal medicineGastroenterologyPaclitaxelPancreatic cancerClinical endpointMetastatic breast cancerUrologyMetastatic adenocarcinomaPerformance statusLung cancerOncologyCancerAdenocarcinomaRandomized controlled trialBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA148 Background: nab-Paclitaxel (nab-P, 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel) provides tumor selective localization via transcytosis across the endothelium, potential tumor uptake via macropinocytosis, and improved pharmacokinetics vs cremophor-paclitaxel. In vitro, nab-P increased tumoral gemcitabine (G) levels, and in a phase I/II study in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) nab-P + G showed promising activity. Methods: Patients (pts) with mPC were randomized to nab-P 125 mg/m2, followed by G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks (cycle 1), then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (≥ cycle 2). For the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS), 608 events from 842 patients provided a power of 0.9 to detect a HR of 0.769 (2-side α = 0.049). Results: 861 pts received therapy. Baseline pt characteristics were well balanced. Median age was 63 years, Karnofsky performance status was 90-100 in 60% and ≤80 in 40% of pts, 43% had head of pancreas lesions, 84% had liver and 39% had lung metastases, and 52% of pts had CA19-9 ≥59 x ULN. Treatment duration was 4 vs 3 months in nab-P + G vs G. The relative protocol G dose was 75% vs 85% in nab-P + G vs G; nab-P dose was 81%. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall response rate (ORR) were significantly improved in the nab-P + G arm (Table). Most common grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (38% vs 27%), fatigue (17% vs 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs 1%) in the nab-P + G vs G arms. Grade ≥3 neuropathy improved to grade ≤1 in 29 days. Febrile neutropenia was reported in 3% (nab-P + G) vs 1% (G) pts. Conclusions: In this multinational, multiinstitutional study, nab-P + G was well tolerated and superior to G with statistically significant and clinically meaningful results in all endpoints and across subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT00844649. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207