MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1945868318

Response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer after exposure to oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting.

2013· article· en· W1945868318 on OpenAlexaff
Louis-Charles Moreau, Raghu Rajan, Michael P. Thirlwell, Thierry Alcindor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOLFOXFOLFIRIOxaliplatinMedicineBevacizumabColorectal cancerInternal medicineIrinotecanOncologyCapecitabineChemotherapySurgeryCancerGastroenterology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Oxaliplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (FOLFOX and FLOX) or capecitabine (XELOX) is the standard adjuvant treatment for colonic cancer. In metastatic disease, 5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and FOLFOX are equivalent in respect to response rates, progression-free and overall survival. Little data are available to compare their efficacy after exposure to oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery and FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by FOLFIRI or FOLFOX for metastatic disease. Exclusion criteria were: metastatic disease at presentation and no oxaliplatin in adjuvant chemotherapy. The end-point was the overall response rate (ORR) to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease after three months, as assessed by computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: A total of 205 patients received FOLFOX as adjuvant treatment for colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2010. Metastatic disease was diagnosed later in 32 cases after a median follow-up of three years (range=1-5.5 years). The median time between the beginning of adjuvant chemotherapy and onset of metastatic disease was 1.7 years (range=0.5-5.5 years). Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for effects of treatment: six patients received FOLFOX plus bevacizumab and 22 FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The ORR was 17% in the FOLFOX group versus 36% in the FOLFIRI group (p=0.22). This difference was not statistically significant, despite a trend in favor of FOLFIRI. CONCLUSION: Metastatic disease after exposure to oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting tends to occur early and can be characterized by partial resistance to this agent. Despite insufficient statistical power, our results suggest that FOLFIRI may result in higher response rates than FOLFOX in this situation. However, oxaliplatin re-challenge can also lead to radiological responses and disease stabilization.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207