Updated survival from a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients (pts) with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
178^ Background: In the phase III MPACT trial, nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) + gemcitabine (G) was tolerable and demonstrated superiority to G alone for all efficacy endpoints in pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). nab-P + G vs G alone met the study’s primary endpoint by demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; median 8.5 vs 6.7 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.617 - 0.835; P < 0.001) and the secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS; median 5.5 vs 3.7 months; HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.581 - 0.821; P < 0.001) and overall response rate (ORR; 23% vs 7%; P < 0.001). The 1-year survival rates for nab-P + G vs G alone were 35% vs 22%. The OS data reported above were based on a database cutoff of September 17, 2012, at which time 80% of pts had died. Here, we report an updated OS analysis (post hoc) from MPACT. Methods: 861 pts with MPC and a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 70 were randomized at 151 community and academic centers 1:1 to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle or G alone 1000 mg/m2weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). The data for this survival analysis were collected through April 1, 2013. Results: As of the updated data cutoff, 380/431 (88%) pts in the nab-P + G arm and 394/430 (92%) pts in the G alone arm had died. OS was superior for nab-P + G vs G alone in the intent-to-treat population, and the longer follow-up allowed an estimate of the 3-year survival rates (Table). The treatment effect was consistent across all pt subgroups examined. Conclusions: This updated survival analysis revealed a sustained difference in OS over time between the 2 arms. MPACT is the first phase III study in MPC to report 3-year survival rates. These data confirm and extend the previous report of the primary endpoint and support the superior efficacy of nab-P + G over G alone. These results may encourage efforts to build upon this well tolerated backbone to further extend survival. 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".