MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer: The Princess Margaret experience.

2015· article· en· W1750557753 on OpenAlexaff
M.K. Chllamma, Natalie Cook, Kazim Giby, Anna Dodd, Lisa Wang, Neesha C. Dhani, David W. Hedley, Malcolm J. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOLFIRINOXMedicineIrinotecanOxaliplatinPancreatic cancerInternal medicineGemcitabineRegimenOncologyGastroenterologyCancerSurgeryColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

417 Background: The FOLFIRINOX regimen has been shown to significantly increase both overall (OS) and progression free (PFS) survival in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC), albeit with an increase in adverse events (AEs). It is not known whether initial dose reductions compromise FOLFIRINOX efficacy and there are limited data regarding treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients (pts) treated with FOLFIRINOX for MPC or LAPC at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, and began treatment between Dec 2011 and April 2014. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX when used with dose modifications. Results: 102 pts were identified; 66 MPC and 36 LAPC. Median age was 65 years. 72% of pts had pancreatic head tumors. At baseline 95% of pts had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 95% had bilirubin < 1.5 ULN and 45% had a biliary stent. 68% of pts initiated treatment with a dose reduction (93% reduction or omission of bolus 5FU, 88% reduction in Irinotecan, 68% reduction in Oxaliplatin and 66% reduction in infusional 5FU). Median number of cycles was 6 (1-31); 25% of pts received <4 cycles. Median OS in metastatic pts was 12.9 months (mo) and 23 mo in LAPC; Median PFS was 8.7 mo (metastatic) and 11.1 mo in LAPC. There was no significant difference in PFS (10.9 vs. 10.3 mo; p=0.60) or OS (11.1 vs. 14.0 mo; p=0.19) between the full starting dose and reduced starting dose groups respectively. Partial response or stable disease was achieved in 57% of pts; 11% of the LAPC pts had a surgical resection. Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were observed in 43% of pts (febrile neutropenia in 6%). Only 13% of pts received G-CSF support. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were observed in 28% of pts, including vomiting (19%), nausea (16%) and diarrhea (16%). 18% of pts had a treatment related hospitalization (5% neutropenic sepsis, 13% GI toxicity/dehydration.) There was one treatment related death. Pt wellbeing (scored on a validated questionnaire) significantly improved from baseline to cycle 4 (p=0.002). Conclusions: Modest dose reductions do not appear to compromise efficacy of FOLFIRINOX. Our median PFS, OS and AEs are comparable to other studies using FOLFIRINOX in both LAPC and metastatic disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207