MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977284775 · doi:10.3747/co.19.879

Phase II Trial of a Metronomic Schedule of Docetaxel and Capecitabine with Concurrent Celecoxib in Patients with Prior Anthracycline Exposure for Metastatic Breast Cancer

2012· article· en· W1977284775 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Scott D. Young, Robert M. Lafrenie, Mark Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaNOSM UniversitySudbury Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineDocetaxelMetastatic breast cancerInternal medicineMucositisBreast cancerCelecoxibNeutropeniaClinical endpointChemotherapyNauseaOncologyCancerClinical trialGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This phase ii clinical trial examined the activity of a metronomic dosing schedule of docetaxel and capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients also received daily oral celecoxib in an effort to improve outcome measures and to ameliorate some of the common side effects of chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients received docetaxel at a starting dose of 15 mg/m² weekly, oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m² once daily, and oral celecoxib 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit: percentage of patients experiencing either an objective response or stable disease (sd) for more than 6 months. In the absence of significant neutropenia, the dose of docetaxel was escalated after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Therapy was given until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The level of thymidine phosphorylase expression in peripheral white blood cells of patients was measured before and during treatment to determine the effect on this capecitabine-activating enzyme. RESULTS: Of 47 patients enrolled, 38 (81%) completed treatment to a disease endpoint. No complete responses were achieved, but 13 of the 38 patients (34%) experienced a partial response, and another 3 patients (8%) experienced sd for more than 6 months. The clinical benefit rate was therefore 42% (95% confidence interval: 27% to 57%). The median time to disease progression for all evaluable patients was 3.6 months (range: 0.9-21.7 months). The most common nonhematologic toxicities were diarrhea, plantar- palmar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, mucositis, and vomiting. Most patients (89%) received combination chemotherapy until disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that metronomic docetaxel-capecitabine chemotherapy with daily celecoxib can produce significant anticancer activity, with predictable toxicity. Efficacy fell short of expectations, with outcome measures being similar to those obtained when the study agents are given in conventional dosing. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence to indicate that a low dose of taxanes fails to induce thymidine phosphorylase expression, an effect believed to be important in achieving therapeutic synergism when taxanes are given concurrently with capecitabine.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Non-randomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207