MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel use in metastatic pancreatic cancer: A study of 40 patients.

2017· article· en· W2602692503 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ivan Barrera, Sabin Filimon, Jassy Meng, Tomas Kavan, Young Soo Rho, Gerald Batist, Petr Kavan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineInternal medicineTolerabilityCapecitabineFOLFIRINOXPancreatic cancerGastroenterologyProgressive diseaseNeutropeniaSurgeryOncologyCancerChemotherapyAdverse effectOxaliplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

498 Background: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) carries a dismal prognosis, with often a poor response to treatment (Tx). Although gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GnP) is now a standard 1st-line (1L) Tx in mPDAC, provincial policies limit its use. To understand the implications of the restriction, this real-life study was conducted. Methods: A historical prospective data was compiled using the local electronic medical record (Endovault Oncology v3.0, NY) at the Jewish General Hospital-McGill. All patients (pts) diagnosed with mPDAC that received GnP from 2013-2016 were identified. Demographics and Tx data was obtained. Primary objective was to evaluate tolerability in all lines of Tx [grade >2 CTCAE v4.03, mean Tx delay (mTxd)]. Secondary objectives were Tx attrition and outcomes [RECIST 1.1, complete response (CR), stable disease (SD) and progression disease (PD)]. Results: Of the 40 pts (female 60%, median age 64.3), 25 (62.5%) had primary at the head of the pancreas and 30 (75%) liver metastasis. 1L Tx: GnP 24 (60%), FOLFIRINOX 10 (FFX, 25%), Gemcitabine 5 (Gc, 12.5%) and FOLFOX 1 (2.5%). 70% of both FFX and Gc pts had grade 2 peripheral neuropathy (PN), neutropenia (NEUT) and fatigue. Half GnP pts had grade 2 NEUT and fatigue. mTxd in GnP, FFX and Gc were 7, 14 and 7 days. All FFX and Gc pts had PD. GnP cohort had 1 CR and 7 SD. 2L Tx was in 22 (55%): GnP 13 (59.5%), FFX 3 (13.5%), Capecitabine 2 (9%), FOLFOX 2 (9%) and Gc (9%). FFX pts 66.6% had grade 3 fatigue. GnP pts had grade 2 NEUT, PN and fatigue in 53.8%, 15.3% and 46.2%. mTxd were GnP 14 days and FFX 14 days. Except 1 SD, all FFX pts had PD. GnP pts had 1 CR, 6 SD, and 6 PD. All pts on Capecitabine, FOLFOX and Gc had PD. 3L Tx was in 6 (15%): 3 GnP (50%) and 3 on clinical trials (50%). All pts had PD and < 3 cycles. In 1L FFX pts, 7/10 and 3/6 went on to receive GnP in 2L and 3L. All 1L Gc pts had 2L GnP. Only 3 pts and 1 pt from 1L GnP pts went on to receive 2L and 3L Tx. Conclusions: Due to access limitations to GnP, its use was likely reserved for poor performance status pts. Instead, 1L FFX was used when possible. 1L FFX pts received more Tx lines due to initial pt selection. Further studies are needed in broader populations to evaluate optimal 1L Tx selection accounting for expected attrition and overall survival.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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