MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

DUBLIN-3 results on quality of life (QoL) in second/third-line EGFR-wild type NSCLC patients (pts) receiving docetaxel (Doc) with or without plinabulin (Plin) using the validated EORTC QLQ C30 and QLQ LC13 questionnaires.

2022· article· en· W4281638918 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Feinstein, Stephan Ogenstad, Dominic Mitchell, Lan Huang, Ramon Mohanlal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelPopulationLung cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9091 Background: Plin, a novel immune-enhancing small molecule, enhances dendritic cell maturation and T-cell proliferation. In the ITT population, the Plin/Doc combination had superior Efficacy (mOS; p = 0.0399), Safety (Gr3/4 AE rate/pt/year; p = 0.038) and QTWiST (p = 0.026) vs standard of care (SoC) Doc alone in NSCLC pts in DUBLIN-3 (Han, ESMO 2021). Here we report DUBLIN-3 QoL results. Methods: DUBLIN-3(NCT02504489) was a randomized, single-blinded (pts only), active-controlled Ph3 study in 2nd/3rd line stage IIIB/IV, EGFR wt NSCLC pts with a measurable lesion (RECIST 1.1) in the lung, and ECOG ≤ 2, conducted in US, Australia, and China. Pts (n = 559) were randomized 1:1 to Plin/Doc or Doc/Placebo (21-day (D) cycle). Doc (75 mg/m2 on D1 and Plin 30 mg/m2 on D1 and D8 were given by IV infusion. QoL was evaluated by the validated questionnaires EORTC QLQ C30 and QLQ LC13 (which is specific for Lung Cancer), and patient-reported scores were collected at baseline and D1, D8 of each cycle (C). Results: Baseline characteristics and QLQ C30 and LC13 scores were comparable between both groups. Plin/Doc was well tolerated. Cumulative C30 sand LC13 scores were calculated for each patient. Mean (SEM) change from baseline in cumulative C30 and LC13 scores were comparable for Plin/Doc and Doc in the first 10 cycles, however separated after C10 in favor of Plin/Doc (table). LC13 items in favor of Plin/Doc vs Doc alone, were items 31 (Coughing; p < 0.05), 36 (Sore Mouth; p < 0.01), 37 (Dysphagia; p < 0.01). Conclusions: We previously reported an OS, Safety, and QTWiST benefit with Plin/Doc vs Doc alone (ESMO 2021) in EGFR wild type 2nd/3rd line NSCLC pts from DUBLIN-3. Here, we report statistically significant QoL benefits with Plin/Doc vs Doc alone, as assessed with EORTC QLQ C30 and LC13, which may be relevant to guide treatment decisions in this generally sick patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT02504489. [Table: see text]

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→