First-line bolus IFL and second-line FOLFOX: A retrospective review of two hundred thirty patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
13555 Introduction: The IFL regimen (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil bolus and leucovorin) is active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Early treatment-related deaths in N9741 led to the utilization of a dose-reduced schema. An infusional regimen (FOLFIRI) replaced IFL because of superior tolerability. FOLFOX can be used as second-line therapy in patients treated previously with IFL. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at the British Columbia Cancer Agency to evaluate both the safety and outcome of all patients given IFL as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Data on second-line FOLFOX was also collected. Between March 31/2002 and April 1/2004, 230 patients were treated. Results: The mean number of IFL cycles delivered was 4.6 (18 doses) for a mean duration of 7.1 months. Toxicity was manageable with only 1 treatment-related death. 17% of patients had grade 3/4 toxicities that included neutropenia and diarrhea. Only 6% of patients required hospitalization during IFL treatment. The median survival of the entire group was 16.6 months (95% CI 14.3–18.6). One hundred twelve patients received second-line therapy. Forty-nine of these patients (44%) received infusional oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX 6) as second-line therapy. 27% had grade 3/4 toxicities and 10% required hospitalization. The median survival of these patients was 25.2 months (95% CI 20.1–30.3). Conclusion: This population-based study demonstrated that bolus IFL played a significant role in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and had a manageable toxicity profile. Lastly, the sequence of IFL followed by FOLFOX resulted in a very meaningful patient survival of over 25 months. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".