MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026314033 · doi:10.4021/wjon407w

A Pilot Study of Chemoradiotherapy With Weekly Docetaxel for Thoracic Esophageal Carcinoma With T4 and/or M1 Lymph Node Metastasis

2011· article· en· W2026314033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isamu Makino

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelChemoradiotherapyRegimenOncologyInternal medicineEsophageal cancerChemotherapyRadiation therapyCarcinomaFluorouracilCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with unresectable or inoperable esophageal carcinoma are usually treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. The present standard regimen is radiation with concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil. However, significant toxicities have been observed. The efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly docetaxel for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer have already been recognized. We conducted a pilot study of definitive chemoradiotherapy with weekly docetaxel for advanced esophageal carcinoma. Methods: Nine patients with advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma having a T4 tumor and/or distant lymph node metastasis (M1 LYM) were enrolled. Docetaxel was administered concurrently with 60 Gy of radiation by drip infusion at a dose of 10 mg/m 2 for an hour once per week and 6 times in total. Results: All 9 patients completed the treatment schedule without any suspension. Grade 3 or higher hematological and biochemical toxicities did not occur. Two patients achieved complete response, and 4 achieved partial response. The response rate was 67%. The median survival time was 16.2 months and the 2-year survival rate was 38.9%. Conclusions: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly low dose docetaxel is a safe and effective treatment regimen for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We expect that this protocol of chemoradiotherapy may be one of the choices of treatment substituting the regimen with cisplatin and fluorouracil, particularly for the patients for whom chemotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil is considered inappropriate because of concomitant renal dysfunction or prior failure of systemic chemotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil. World J Oncol. 2011;2(5):252-258 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/wjon407w

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207