A phase II study of UFT with leucovorin administered as a twice daily schedule in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged infusions have been shown to be safer and potentially more effective than bolus regimens of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) as treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, infusional 5-FU requires central venous access and costly infusion pumps. Oral fluoropyrimidines enable longer exposures to 5-FU with increased convenience. Tegafur-uracil (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) given thrice daily has improved safety plus comparable survival and response rates to bolus 5-FU/LV. We conducted a phase II clinical study in 98 patients with mCRC to evaluate if UFT with LV given twice daily provided comparable time to progression (TTP), efficacy and tolerability to that reported for thrice daily in two phase III clinical studies. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Median TTP was 3.8 months, when compared with 3.5 months for thrice daily. The ORR (11%) and median OS (12.8 months) with twice daily administration were similar to that of thrice daily administration (12% and 12.4 months). The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related diarrhoea was 30% on the twice daily and 21% on the thrice daily schedule. These results suggest that twice daily administration has similar efficacy and tolerability to thrice daily administration and is an acceptable alternative for patients who would benefit from UFT with LV 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".