Treatment patterns and survival outcomes of older patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): A Canadian real-world evidence study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
385 Background: We aimed to compare chemotherapy regimens used and overall survival (OS) among geriatric patients (≥ 75 years) with APC as compared to old (65-74 years) and young (< 65 years) patients with APC. Methods: In this retrospective population-based analysis, we identified patients with APC (defined as inoperable/metastatic disease) from 5 large provinces in Canada who were diagnosed from 2011 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to derive OS and multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to determine the associations of different age groups on OS. Results: We included 636 patients diagnosed with APC of whom 258 (40.6%), 247 (38.8%) and 131 (20.6%) were young, old and geriatric. Approximately half (45.7%) of all patients were women. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was known in 508 patients at diagnosis among whom 62.2% were 0-1 and 37.8% were 2+. ECOG PS was more likely to be 2+ in the geriatric group (46.8% vs 41.1% vs 31.3%; P = 0.017). Most patients (95.8%) had metastatic disease while the remaining patients had inoperable locally advanced disease. Within the study cohort, 38.7% received chemotherapy. Treatment rates differed based on age: 41.9% in young patients, 40.9% in old patients and 28.2% in geriatric patients (P = 0.02). Choice of first-line chemotherapy varied and included FOLFIRINOX (F) in 99 (40.2%), gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GN) in 91 (37.0%) and gemcitabine (G) in 56 (22.8%). F, GN and G were administered in 27.0%, 32.4% and 40.5% of geriatric patients, 40.6%, 32.7% and 26.7% of old patients, and 44.4%, 42.6% and 13.0% of young patients, respectively (P = 0.007). After adjusting for baseline factors, both geriatric (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.17; P = 0.175) and old patients were as likely to receive chemotherapy (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.56; P = 0.815) as their young counterparts. The median OS was 7.1 (6.3-8.4), 6.7 (5.5-8.9) and 5.3 (4.3-6.8) months in young, old and geriatric patients, respectively. After adjusting for baseline variables, both geriatric (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96-1.62; P = 0.101) and old patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.42; P = 0.171) experienced similar OS as young patients. ECOG PS 2+ at presentation was associated with worse OS as was treatment with G. Conclusions: Overall treatment rates for APC are low in the real world. The poor OS in geriatric patients with APC is driven by poor PS and use of less intensive chemotherapy. Age alone should not be considered a contraindication for more intensive chemotherapy since treatment benefit is observed across all age groups. [Table: see text]
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».