MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536496102 · doi:10.1002/cncr.23302

Dose‐intensive chemotherapy with growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplant support in first‐line treatment of advanced or metastatic adult soft tissue sarcoma

2008· review· en· W1536496102 on OpenAlexafffund
Shailendra Verma, Jawaid Younus, Denise Stys‐Norman, Adam E. Haynes, Martin E. Blackstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMount Sinai HospitalCancer Care OntarioOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationOttawa Hospital
FundersCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapySarcomaStem cellBone marrow transplantOncologySoft tissueBone marrowBone marrow transplantationPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review was performed to determine whether first-line dose-intensive chemotherapy supported by growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation improves response rate, time-to-disease progression, or survival compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in patients with inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Three randomized trials (2 phase 3, 1 phase 2), 12 phase 2, and 5 phase 1 dose-escalation trials were located. One randomized trial (N=314) did not detect significant differences in response rate (P=.65) or survival (log-rank P=.98) between high-dose doxorubicin plus ifosfamide with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor and doxorubicin plus ifosfamide at standard doses. Progression-free survival, however, was significantly longer in the high-dose arm (log-rank P=.03). Higher rates of thrombocytopenia, infection, grade 3 of 4 asthenia, and stomatitis were observed with high-dose compared with standard-dose chemotherapy. Preliminary results from a second randomized trial (N=162) indicated no benefit with respect to tumor response for an intensified mesna, doxorubicin (Adriamycin), ifosfamide, and dacarbazine regimen with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support compared with standard doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and dacarbazine. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher with the high-dose regimen. Four phase 2 trials of high-dose regimens observed tumor response rates greater than 50%. Phase 1 trials reported dose-limiting toxicity for dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens. On the basis of the available evidence, high-dose chemotherapy with growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation should not be used in the routine treatment of patients with inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207