Gemcitabine/platinum alone or in combination with cetuximab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7539 Background: This randomized phase II study was conducted to evaluate the benefit of adding cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting the EGF receptor, to gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Methods: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB (malignant pleural effusion) or stage IV NSCLC irrespective of their EGF receptor status were eligible for this study. Patients on arm A received cetuximab (400 mg/m2 IV on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly) combined with either cisplatin (75 mg/m2 IV q3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 8) or carboplatin (AUC 5 IV q3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 IV days 1 and 8). Patients on Arm B received the same chemotherapy regimen without cetuximab. The primary endpoint was tumor response rate with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints. Results: 73 women and 58 men, median age 66 years (35–88) were randomized to arm A (n=65) or arm B (n=66). Partial responses occurred in 18 (27.7%, 95% CI: 17.3–40.2) patients in arm A and 12 (18.2%, 95% CI 9.8–29.6) in arm B. Median PFS was 5.09 months for arm A (95% CI: 4.17–5.98) and 4.21 months (95% CI: 3.81–5.49) in arm B; median OS was 11.99 (95% CI: 8.80–15.20) and 9.26 months (95% CI: 7.43–11.79) respectively. The incidence of drug related infusion reactions (any grade) in arm A was 15.6% and 1.5% in arm B. Three patients in arm A had grade 3–4 cetuximab related infusion reactions. Severe acneform rash was observed in 14.1% of patients in arm A and none in arm B. Other toxicities were similar and only 18.5% of patients in arm A and 10.6% patients in arm B discontinued treatment for toxicity. Conclusions: These data confirm the previously observed benefit for the combination of cetuximab with a platinum based doublet chemotherapy regimen patients with metastatic NSCLC. The difference of 2.7 months in median OS between treatment arms seems to suggest a more substantial clinical benefit. Fully powered phase III studies addressing this question are on- going and results will become available in 2007. [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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".