MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Weekly nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as first-line therapy in elderly patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2012· article· en· W2601214088 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Socinski, Corey J. Langer, Isamu Okamoto, Jeremy K. Hon, Vera Hirsh, Shaker R. Dakhil, Ray D. Page, James Orsini, Hui Zhang, Markus F. Renschler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCarboplatinnon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)Clinical endpointGastroenterologyLung cancerPopulationPaclitaxelPerformance statusCancerSurgeryChemotherapyOncologyRandomized controlled trialCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7590 Background: The median age of advanced NSCLC pts in the US is 71 years; yetelderly pts (≥70 years) are generally undertreated, with only ≈30% receiving systemic therapy. Hence, better, more tolerable therapeutic options are needed for this cohort. In a phase III trial nab-paclitaxel (nab-P, 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel particles) + carboplatin (C) vs solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-P) + C, significantly improved ORR, the primary endpoint (25% vs 33%, P = 0.005), with a 1-month improvement in OS (P = NS) and improved safety. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety in pts ≥70 and <70 years old. Methods: Pts with untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and with an ECOG score of 0/1 were randomized 1:1 (stratified by age [≥70 vs <70 years], region, stage, gender, and histology) to C AUC 6 day 1 and either nab-P 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 or sb-P 200 mg/m2 day 1 q 21 days. ORR and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined by blinded centralized review. Results: Of the phase III study population, 15% were elderly (156/1052; 74 pts in the nab-P/C and 82 in the sb-P/C arms). Most elderly pts were male (72%), Caucasian (71%), and had stage IV disease (64%). In pts both ≥70 and <70 years old, ORR was higher in the nab-P/C vs sb-P/C arm (≥70: 34% vs 24%, P = 0.196; <70: 32% vs 25%, P = 0.013). In pts ≥70 years old, PFS trended in favor of nab-P/C (median 8.0 vs 6.8 months, HR: 0.687, P = 0.134); OS was significantly improved (median 19.9 vs 10.4 months, HR: 0.583, P = 0.009). In contrast, PFS (6.0 vs 5.8 median months, HR: 0.903, P = 0.256) and OS (11.4 vs 11.3 median months, HR: 0.999, P = 0.988) were similar for both treatment arms in pts <70 years old. Adverse events were similar in pts ≥70 years old vs the entire study population, with less grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.05) and neuropathy (P < 0.05) and increased thrombocytopenia (P = NS) and anemia (P < 0.05) in the nab-P/C vs sb-P/C arms. In pts ≥70 years old, patient-reported FACT-taxane subscales revealed significantly less neuropathy, pain, and hearing loss in the nab-P/C vs sb-P/C arms (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In elderly pts with advanced NSCLC, nab-P/C as first-line therapy was well tolerated and led to improved ORR and PFS, with significantly longer OS vs sb-PC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207