Survival Outcomes Based on Sequence of Therapy Using FOLFIRINOX and Nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Optimal sequence of therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is unknown. Combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nab-p/gem) are standard first-line (1L) therapies. They have never been prospectively compared. We retrospectively compared overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 1L nab-p/gem and second-line (2L) FOLFIRINOX with those treated with the reverse sequence. METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with 1L FOLFIRINOX and 2L nab-p/gem or vice versa were identified using an electronic health record-derived real-world database. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we compared OS from initiation of 1L therapy. A Cox model, stratified by deciles of propensity score, estimated the effect of treatment sequence on OS. RESULTS: The study included 3027 patients. The median OS for 1L FOLFIRINOX versus nab-p/gem was 8.6 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.84). The median OS for 1L FOLFIRINOX and 2L nab-p/gem versus 1L nab-p/gem and 2L FOLFIRINOX was 11.9 versus 11.5 months (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of real-world data, 1L FOLFIRINOX was associated with increased OS in propensity analysis. For patients who received both FOLFIRINOX and nab-p/gem, median OS was similar regardless of sequence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".