ABOUND.2L+: A randomized phase 2 study of nanoparticle albumin‐bound paclitaxel with or without CC‐486 as second‐line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized phase 2 trial compared the efficacy and safety of second-line nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) with or without the addition of CC-486 (an oral formulation of 5-azacytidine) in patients with advanced-stage, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: on days 1 and 8, with both regimens administered every 21 days until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the overall response rate, the disease control rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and August 2016, 161 patients were randomized (81 to the combination arm and 80 to the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arm). There was no benefit from the addition of CC-486 to nab-paclitaxel. The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months for the combination and 4.2 months for single-agent nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.9). The median overall survival was 8.1 months in the combination arm and 17 months in the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arms (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.57). Grade 3 or greater treatment-related, emergent adverse events were reported by 40.5% of patients in the combination arm and by 31.6% of those in the single-agent nab-paclitaxel arm. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent nab-paclitaxel was associated with promising outcomes and a tolerable safety profile as second-line treatment for patients with advanced-stage, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. There was no benefit from the addition of CC-486 to nab-paclitaxel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".