Results of a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of weekly <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with PET and CA19-9 correlates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4005^ Background: nab-paclitaxel (nab-P; 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel) has demonstrated both single-agent activity and synergy with gemcitabine (G) in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer (PC). nab-P + G also demonstrated promising efficacy in a phase I/II study in metastatic PC (J Clin Oncol. 2011:4548-4554), warranting a phase III study of nab-P + G vs G for metastatic PC. Methods: 861 patients (pts) with metastatic PC and a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 70 were randomized at 151 community and academic centers 1:1 to receive nab-P 125 mg/m 2 + G 1000 mg/m 2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G alone 1000 mg/m 2 weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle ≥ 2). The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints were PFS and ORR by independent review. Results: The median age was 63 years (range 27 - 88). KPS was 100 (16%), 90 (44%), 80 (32%), and 70 (7%). Pts had advanced disease with liver metastases (84%), ≥ 3 metastatic sites (46%), and CA19-9 ≥ 59 × ULN (46%). nab-P + G was superior to G for all efficacy endpoints: median OS was 8.5 vs. 6.7 mo (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.617 - 0.835; P = 0.000015); median PFS was 5.5 vs. 3.7 mo (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.581 - 0.821; P = 0.000024), and ORR was 23% vs. 7% (P = 1.1 × 10 −10 ) by RECIST v1.0. Metabolic response by PET in 257 patients was 63% for nab-P + G vs 38% for G (P = 0.000051). CA19-9 response (≥ 90% decrease) was 31% for nab-P + G vs. 14% for G (P < 0.0001). Grade ≥ 3 AEs with nab-P + G vs. G included neutropenia (38% vs. 27%), fatigue (17 % vs. 7%), diarrhea (6% vs 1%), and febrile neutropenia (3% vs. 1%). Grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred in 17% vs. 1% of pts who received nab-P + G vs. G, respectively; for nab-P + G, PN improved to grade ≤ 1 in a median 29 days, and 44% of patients resumed nab-P treatment. The median duration of treatment was 3.9 mo for nab-P + G and 2.8 mo for G. Conclusions: MPACT was a large, international study performed at community and academic centers. nab-P + G was superior to G across all efficacy endpoints, had an acceptable toxicity profile, and is a new standard for the treatment of metastatic PC that could become the backbone for new regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT00844649.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".