[Responses of 109 adult soft tissue sarcoma patients to chemotherapy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: The response of adult soft tissue sarcoma (STS) to chemotherapy is uncertain. This study was to evaluate the role of chemotherapy in treating adult soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Clinical data of 109 adult soft tissue sarcoma patients, treated with chemotherapy at Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University from Jan. 2000 to Dec. 2005, were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 109 patients, 66 received palliative chemotherapy, 40 received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 3 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The overall response rate for first line chemotherapy was 22.7%. The median survival was 16.9 months. The 1-and 2-year survival rates were 63.6% and 33.3%. The patients with lung metastasis had a significantly longer median survival than those with liver metastasis did (25.1 months vs. 11.8 months, P<0.05). MAID and CYVADIC were the most commonly used first-line chemotherapy regimens; the response rates were 28.0% and 22.2%, respectively. When anthracycline and/or standard dose ifosfamide failed, the patients could still benefit from high dose ifosfamide (14.0 g/m(2)). The median survival was significantly shorter in the patients who got metastasis within 6 months after diagnosis than in those that got metastasis more than 6 months after diagnosis (11.8 months vs. 42.9 months, P=0.04). Of the 40 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 16 developed progression during follow-up: 10 had relapse and 6 had distant metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: MAID and CYVADIC are two effective chemotherapy regimens for adult soft tissue sarcoma. We recommend to take a high dose ifosfamide when anthracycline and/or standard dose ifosfamide failed. The patients with liver metastasis are more resistant to chemotherapy than those with lung metastasis. Developing metastasis within 6 months after diagnosis is a poor prognostic factor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".