Expanded phase II trial of gemcitabine and capecitabine for advanced biliary cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) in patients with advanced biliary cancer led to an objective response in approximately 30% of patients and a median survival of 14 months. In the current study, the authors report further efficacy data of a larger cohort of such patients treated with the GemCap regimen. METHODS: Patients aged >18 years and who had a diagnosis of locally advanced biliary cancer received first-line treatment with capecitabine at a dose of 650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days and gemcitabine at a dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) on Day 1 and Day 8, every 3 weeks until disease progression. Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2005, 75 patients were enrolled in the study. At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the overall response rate was 29% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 19.4-41%), with a median duration of 9.7 months (range, 3-36 months). Three patients achieved complete responses, with a median duration of 17 months (range, 9-27 months). The median progression-free survival and overall survivals were 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) and 12.7 months (95% CI, 9.5-31 months), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GemCap regimen is active in patients with biliary cancer. Randomized trials are warranted to define the impact of such a regimen on patient survival and quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".