Mitomycin in Anal Canal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred and ten patients with primary epidermoid cancers of the anal canal were treated in a series of prospectively designed, nonrandomized protocols of split-course radiation therapy with concurrent administration of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with or without mitomycin. The addition of mitomycin was associated with improved primary tumor control rates (87 vs. 58% at 4 years, p = 0.005) and improved 4-year actuarial cause-specific survival (80 vs. 64%, p = 0.02). Hematologic toxicity was the most frequent acute side effect of mitomycin use. No long-term toxicity was attributed to mitomycin only. Mitomycin appeared to benefit patients principally through improved control of cancer in the irradiated volume; there was no evidence of reduced risk of extrapelvic metastases. Several investigators have reported high rates of control of epidermoid anal cancers with preservation of anorectal function following concurrent treatment with mitomycin, 5-FU, and radiation. Mitomycin's role in anal cancer is being evaluated in a randomized clinical trial by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. The mechanisms of any interactions between mitomycin and radiation or other cytotoxic drugs in clinical practice remain to be determined.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".