Two schedules of second‐line irinotecan for metastatic colon carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a recently reported, randomized trial, it was found that a regimen of irinotecan once every 3 weeks for patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma was associated with a lower incidence of severe diarrhea compared with weekly treatment, and both regimens had similar efficacy. METHODS: Resource utilization was captured prospectively for all 291 patients who were included in the trial. Utilities were estimated by transformation of the global quality-of-life (QOL) item on the Eastern Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 instrument. RESULTS: Patients in the every-3-week arm incurred an average incremental cost of $1362, because they received higher average weekly doses and because the every-3-week regimen resulted in less toxicity, allowing delivery of 97% of the planned doses compared with delivery of only 75% of the planned doses in the weekly arm. This lower toxicity also resulted in offsetting savings from decreased hospitalization and less requirement for supportive medications. Non-chemotherapy-related treatment administration costs also were lower, because the every-3-week regimen could be delivered with half the number of infusions. Utility declined less in the every-3-week arm, resulting in a saving of 6.3 quality-adjusted days. The base-case cost:utility ratio was $78,627 per quality-adjusted life year for patients on the every-3-week schedule. However, that ratio was very sensitive to the cost of irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: The schedule of irinotecan once every 3 weeks schedule was more costly but achieved lower toxicity, resulting in modestly improved utility. The cost-per-utility ratio was comparable to other commonly accepted contemporary treatments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".