Variations in adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in women with epithelial ovarian cancer – a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate whether variations in primary chemotherapy were associated with survival in a nationally complete cohort of Australian women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All 1192 women diagnosed with invasive EOC in Australia in 2005 were identified through state-based cancer registries. Medical record information including details of primary chemotherapy treatment was obtained and survival data updated in 2012. Those started on standard chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel given at three-weekly intervals) after primary cytoreductive surgery were included (n = 351) and the relative dose intensity (RDI) was calculated. Time interval between surgery and start of chemotherapy was analysed in weeks. Hazard ratios [HR, 95% confidence interval (CI)] were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Compared to women with RDI of 91-100%, those with RDI of ≤ 70% had significantly poor survival (HRadj = 1.62, 95% CI 1.05-2.49). This association was stronger among women with advanced (FIGO stage III/IV) disease at diagnosis (HRadj = 1.90, 95% CI 1.22-2.96). The interval between primary surgery and chemotherapy was not related to survival (HRadj = 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.03 for every week of delay), at least up to a period of five weeks. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that RDI of 70% or less was associated with poorer survival, particularly in women with advanced stage EOC. In contrast, the interval duration between primary surgery and chemotherapy was not related to survival, irrespective of disease stage or residual disease. These results provide some reassurance that, at least up until five weeks post-surgery, timing of chemotherapy commencement has a negligible effect on survival.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".