Results of a randomized, phase III trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and carboplatin (C) compared with cremophor-based paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA7511 Background: Platinum-based doublet therapy in NSCLC, regardless of the combination used, reached a therapeutic plateau. PC produced 15-25% overall response (ORR, Kelly 2001; Sandler 2006; Schiller 2002). Albumin-bound paclitaxel, nab-P, utilizes the albumin receptor (gp60)/caveolin-1 (CAV1) pathway achieving high intratumoral paclitaxel accumulation (Desai 2006), which may have contributed to a 48% ORR observed with nab-PC in NSCLC (Stroyakovsky, 2009). This phase III trial studied the efficacy of nab-PC vs. PC in advanced NSCLC of all histologic types. Methods: First-line stage IIIB or IV NSCLC pts (ECOG 0/1) were randomized to C AUC6 q3w and either nab-P 100 mg/m2 qw w/o premed (n = 521) or P 200 mg/m2 q3w with premed (n = 531). Primary endpoint: ORR by independent radiologic review (IRR). Results: Baseline and histologic characteristics were well balanced. Dose intensity of paclitaxel was higher in nab-PC vs. PC (82 vs. 65 mg/m2/wk). nab-PC was superior to PC both by IRR (33 vs. 25%, p=0.005), a 31% improvement (1.31 response ratio [RR], 95% CI: 1.08, 1.59), and by investigator review (37 vs. 30%, p=0.008), a 26% improvement (1.26 RR, CI: 1.06, 1.50). Histologic analysis showed significantly improved ORR for nab-PC (n = 228) vs. PC (n = 221) in squamous cell carcinoma (SQC) pts (41 vs. 24%, p<0.001, IRR), a 67% improvement (1.67 RR, CI: 1.26, 2.21). nab-PC was as effective as PC in nonSQC pts (ORR 26 vs. 25%). nab-PC was well tolerated, with significantly improved safety profile vs. PC despite higher paclitaxel dose delivered (1,338 vs. 1,100 mg/m2). Conclusions: The primary endpoint was met, with significantly improved ORR and safety profile of nab-PC vs. PC as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC. nab-PC was highly active in the SQC subset, which may in part be attributed to the aberrant CAV1 overexpression in SQC (Yoo 2003) and the high intratumoral accumulation of nab-P via the gp60-CAV1 pathway. [Table: see text] [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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".