MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Weekly <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Analysis of patient-reported neuropathy and taxane-associated symptoms.

2012· article· en· W2603616054 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Hirsh, Isamu Okamoto, Jeremy K. Hon, Shaker R. Dakhil, Ray D. Page, James Orsini, Hui Zhang, Markus F. Renschler, Mark A. Socinski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTaxaneInternal medicineTolerabilityCarboplatinCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsClinical endpointPaclitaxelOncologyLung cancerAdverse effectPeripheral neuropathyGastroenterologyCancerChemotherapyClinical trialBreast cancerDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS7618 Background: Neuropathy and its associated symptoms are dose-limiting toxicities of taxane-based regimens. Measuring disease symptoms has utility for maintaining a balance between the benefits and costs of treatment. 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 the primary endpoint of overall response rate (ORR) (25% vs 33%, P = 0.005), with a 1-month improvement in median overall survival (OS; P = NS), and an improved tolerability profile in pts with advanced NSCLC. Here we report on patient-assessed neuropathy and taxane-associated symptoms, important factors in a palliative patient setting. Methods: Pts with untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to C AUC 6 day 1 and either nab-P 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 (n = 521) or sb-P 200 mg/m2 day 1 (n = 531) q 21 days. Treatment was continued until disease progression. Safety was assessed per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0. The mean change from baseline to day 1 of each cycle for the neuropathy, pain, and hearing subscales of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)‑Taxane v 4.0 were assessed. Results: 1031 (98%) pts completed FACT-Taxane at baseline, and 987 (94%) during follow-up or at completion of treatment. Baseline scores for neuropathy and pain were well balanced. Significant treatment effects favoring nab-P/C were noted for patient-reported neuropathy (P < 0.001), neuropathic pain hands/feet (P < 0.001), and hearing loss (P = 0.002). Physician-assessed rates of neuropathy were significantly lower in the nab-P/C arm vs the sb-P/C arm: 47% vs 63%, P < 0.001, all grades; 3% vs 12%, P < 0.001, grade 3/4, respectively. More pts treated with nab-P/C vs sb-P/C had no neuropathy (53% vs 47%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: nab-P/C was associated with statistically and clinically significant reductions in patient-reported neuropathy, neuropathic pain in the hands and feet, and hearing loss compared with sb-P/C. Patient-reported outcomes for neuropathy were consistent with physician assessment.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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