Comparison of 5-FU versus capecitabine in combination with mitomycin or cisplatin in the treatment of anal cancer.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
680 Background: Capecitabine is used as an alternative fluoropyrimidine to infusional 5-FU in the non-operative management of anal cancer due to its ease of administration. However, its patterns of use and long-term outcomes in the real world are poorly described. Our objectives were to determine the frequency of capecitabine use, compare the difference in outcomes, and examine the difference in treatment-related adverse events between oral and intravenous fluoropyrimidines. Methods: All anal cancer patients who received either capecitabine or infusional 5-FU as part of their curative intent chemoradiotherapy from 2010 to 2013 at any 1 of 6 comprehensive cancer centers in British Columbia were included. Chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann tests were used to assess for associations between treatment groups and clinical characteristics and outcomes. Results: A total of 237 patients were identified; median age was 59 (IQR 53-67) years, 71 (30%) were men, 202 (85%) had ECOG 0/1, and 12 (5%) were HIV positive. Median total radiation dose was 54 cGy (IQR 50.4-54.0) and 21 (9%) underwent a colostomy prior to chemoradiation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups with respect to age, gender, ECOG, and HIV status (all p > 0.05). Overall, 155 patients (65%) received capecitabine. Comparing patients who received capecitabine vs 5-FU, overall (69% vs 74%, p = 0.388) and disease-free survival rates (68% vs 71%, p = 0.637) at 5 years from diagnosis were similar between treatment groups. There were no differences with respect to rates of subsequent colostomy (16% vs 23%, p = 0.185) and abdominoperineal resection (11% vs 12%, p = 0.777). However, patients who received capecitabine were less likely to report adverse effects (51% vs 26%, p < 0.001) than those who underwent 5-FU. The capecitabine group had a lower incidence of stomatitis (6% vs 40%, p < 0.001) whereas the 5-FU cohort reported less frequent hand-foot syndrome (1% vs 8%, p = 0.036). Conclusions: This population-based study demonstrates a preference for capecitabine use in place of 5-FU in the curative management of anal cancer. Survival outcomes are similar between the two treatment groups, but capecitabine may be better tolerated.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».