Efficacy and safety of nanoparticle-albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with conventional taxanes in women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term benefit of nanoparticle-albumin-bound paclitaxel (Nab-P) over conventional taxanes in breast cancer patients is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review of studies to identify the optimal taxanes for selection in clinical practice. METHODS: We enrolled studies if they enrolled adults (age ≥18) with breast cancer, compared Nab-P (at any dose) to conventional paclitaxel or docetaxel, provided information on survival data, the response rate, or adverse events, were randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies, and were published in English (including those published online, ahead of the print publication). Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for bias-risk assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach were adopted for the quality of evidence evaluation. The outcomes included the overall response rate, pathological complete response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, allergic reaction, leukopenia, neutropenia, and sensory neuropathy. RESULTS: A total of 20 eligible clinical studies comprising 11,046 patients were included in the analysis. No significant publication bias was observed based on a visual inspection of the funnel plots for progressionfree survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Compared to the conventional taxanes group (n=2,743), the Nab-P group (n=1,680) had a significantly higher ORR (RR =1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37; P=0.003) and pCR (RR =1.33, 95% CI: 1.17-1.51; P<0.001). The Nab-P group also had a lower risk of disease progression and death than the conventional taxanes group (HR =0.89, P=0.269). Additionally, the Nab-P group had fewer treatment-related allergic reactions (RR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.59-0.93; P=0.009) and less grade ≥4 neutropenia (RR =0.39, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P=0.007) than the conventional taxanes group. The incidence of any-grade of neutropenia and sensory neuropathy were significantly higher in the Nab-P group than the conventional taxanes group (P=0.009 and P<0.001, respectively). DISCUSSION: The Nab-P in all stages of breast cancer patients had significantly better efficacy and tolerance than the conventional taxanes. Moreover, preventive strategies for reducing the incidence of Nab-P induced sensory neuropathy should be explored in future studies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".