XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85-1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83-1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal 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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".