MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analyses of updated overall survival (OS) and prognostic effect of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and CA 19-9 from the phase III MPACT study of <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel (<i>nab</i>-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) versus Gem for patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC).

2014· article· en· W2599122764 on OpenAlexaff
David Goldstein, Robert H. El-Maraghi, Pascal Hammel, Volker Heinemann, Volker Kunzmann, Javier Sastre, Werner Scheithauer, Salvatore Siena, Teresa Macarulla, Luís Teixeira, Giampaolo Tortora, Jean‐Luc Van Laethem, Darryl Penenberg, Brian Lu, Alfredo Romano, Daniel D. Von Hoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineClinical endpointInternal medicinePopulationGastroenterologyNeutropeniaPost-hoc analysisToxicityPhases of clinical researchSurgeryUrologyChemotherapyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4027^ Background: In the phase III MPACT trial, nab-P + Gem demonstrated superior OS vs Gem (primary endpoint; median 8.5 vs 6.7 months; HR 0.72; P< 0.001) with manageable toxicity in pts with metastatic PC. The primary analyses were based on a cutoff of Sep 17, 2012, at which time 80% of pts had died. Here, we report an updated OS analysis (post hoc) and an assessment of pts with elevated NLR or elevated CA 19-9 at baseline, 2 accepted markers of poor prognosis. Methods: 861 pts with metastatic PC and a Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70 were randomized at 151 community and academic centers 1:1 to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle or Gem 1,000 mg/m2weekly for 7 wks followed by 1 wk of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). The data for the OS analysis were collected through May 9, 2013. Baseline NLR and CA19-9 were measured in blood samples collected before treatment. Results: As of the updated data cutoff, 380 of 431 pts (88%) in the nab-P + Gem arm and 394 of 430 pts (92%) in the Gem-alone arm had died. OS was superior for nab-P + Gem in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and longer follow-up identified > 3-yr survivors in the nab-P + Gem arm (Table). In a pooled–treatment-arm analysis, a NLR ≤ 5 was associated with longer OS vs a NLR > 5 (median 9.1 vs 5.0 months; HR 1.839; P < 0.001). Median OS was longer with nab-P + Gem vs Gem for pts with a NLR > 5 and pts with CA 19-9 > 59 × upper limit of normal (ULN; Table). Conclusions: Updated data confirmed the treatment effect favoring nab-P + Gem for OS. Additional follow-up has identified long-term survivors in the nab-P + Gem arm. The improved OS for pts treated with nab-P + Gem who have a NLR > 5 or an elevated CA 19-9 supports the relative benefit of the combination, even for pts with markers of poor prognosis. Clinical trial information: NCT00844649.Updated OS (May 9, 2013). nab-P+ Gem n = 431 Gem n = 430 HR P value ITT population Median OS, mo 8.7 6.6 0.72 < 0.001 OS rates by mo, % 6 66 55 12 35 22 24 10 5 36 4 — 40 3 — 42 3 — Subsets with markers of poor prognosis Median OS, mo NLR > 5 (n = 309) 5.6 4.3 0.81 0.079 CA 19-9 ≥ 59 × ULN (n = 392) 8.4 5.7 0.61 < 0.001

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→