The BC Cancer Agency Compassionate Access Program: Outcome Analysis of Patients with Esophagogastric Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The BC Cancer Agency Gastro-intestinal Tumor Group supports one standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy regimen for metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma-specifically, weekly cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) infusion. All other regimens require Compassionate Access Program (CAP) approval for public funding. OBJECTIVES: We examined response, toxicity, and survival after first-line cap chemotherapy (CAP1), or soc and second-line cap chemotherapy (CAP2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched cap records for December 1999 to April 2006, abstracted charts, constructed a database, and undertook survival analyses. Treatment response, serious toxicities, and hospitalizations were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 32 esophageal (10 gastroesophageal junction) and 53 gastric cancer (62%) patients, 55 of whom were stage M1 at diagnosis. Prior therapy consisted of chemoradiotherapy (n = 14), adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 3), and radical surgery (n = 34). Of these 85 patients, 50 received CAP1, and 35 received soc, then CAP2. Docetaxel and irinotecan regimens accounted for 34% and 36%, 5% and 55%, 16% and 32% respectively of first-, second-, and third-line cap requests. Partial responses were documented with soc (11/35, 31%) and CAP1 (6/50, 12%). Grade 3+ toxicity rates were 19/50 (38%) and 6/35 (17%) with CAP1 and soc chemotherapy. With cap chemotherapy, 20 hospitalizations occurred, and with soc chemotherapy, 2 hospitalizations. For all patients, median follow-up and survival times were 8.9 months and 9.7 months respectively. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients deemed suitable to receive non-soc chemotherapy regimens or unsuitable to receive soc chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Toxicities in cap chemotherapy regimens were substantial. Survival times were consistent with results of international phase II and III trials in esophagogastric cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".