MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084330540 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601676

Oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: integrated efficacy data and novel analyses from two large, randomised, phase III trials

2004· article· en· W2084330540 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Van Cutsem, Paulo M. Hoff, Peter Harper, Ronald M. Bukowski, David Cunningham, P Dufour, Ullrich Graeven, J Lokich, Stefan Madajewicz, Jean A. Maroun, John L. Marshall, Edith P. Mitchell, G. Pérez-Manga, P. Rougier, Wolff Schmiegel, Juergen Schöelmerich, Alberto Sobrero, Richard L. Schilsky

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioFluorouracilRegimenConfidence intervalGastroenterologyPopulationProportional hazards modelColorectal cancerOncologySurgeryChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the efficacy of capecitabine using data from a large, well-characterised population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in two identically designed phase III studies. A total of 1207 patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomised to either oral capecitabine (1250 mg m(-2) twice daily, days 1-14 every 21 days; n=603) or intravenous (i.v.) bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV; Mayo Clinic regimen; n=604). Capecitabine demonstrated a statistically significant superior response rate compared with 5-FU/LV (26 vs 17%; P<0.0002). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that capecitabine consistently resulted in superior response rates (P<0.05), even in patient subgroups with poor prognostic indicators. The median time to response and duration of response were similar and time to progression (TTP) was equivalent in the two arms (hazard ratio (HR) 0.997, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.123, P=0.95; median 4.6 vs 4.7 months with capecitabine and 5-FU/LV, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified younger age, liver metastases, multiple metastases and poor Karnofsky Performance Status as independent prognostic indicators for poor TTP. Overall survival was equivalent in the two arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.06, P=0.48; median 12.9 vs 12.8 months, respectively). Capecitabine results in superior response rate, equivalent TTP and overall survival, an improved safety profile and improved convenience compared with i.v. 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment for MCRC. For patients in whom fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is indicated, capecitabine should be strongly considered. Following encouraging results from phase I and II trials, randomised trials are evaluating capecitabine in combination with irinotecan, oxaliplatin and radiotherapy. Capecitabine is a suitable replacement for i.v. 5-FU as the backbone of colorectal cancer therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations398
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207