Survival benefit of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the magnitude of benefit of chemotherapy in prolonging survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial was performed. A systematic search was performed to identify randomized trials comparing chemotherapy with observation or supportive care alone. Trials were assessed for quality of reporting, publication bias and heterogeneity. Relative risks for outcomes from published data were pooled using a random-effects model. Seven trials with 614 patients were included. All trials used fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, through a variety of routes and schedules, including intravenous, intra-portal and hepatic arterial infusion. Compared with the 'no-chemotherapy' arm, chemotherapy significantly reduced 1-year mortality (risk ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.81, P < 0.00001). The mortality at 2 years was not significantly different (risk ratio 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-1.00, P = 0.053). Between-trial comparisons demonstrated benefit with a variety of routes and schedules. Chemotherapy significantly prolongs 1-year survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and should be offered to those with good performance status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.072 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".