Survival Differences Observed in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Capecitabine When Compared With Vinorelbine After Pretreatment With Anthracycline and Taxane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The optimal treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracycline and taxane is unknown. Common therapeutic alternatives include capecitabine and vinorelbine. This retrospective chart review compares overall survival following treatment with capecitabine, vinorelbine, or both agents sequentially in this group of women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic patient records and charts of patients who received anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy and subsequently received capecitabine and/or vinorelbine at 3 Canadian cancer centers, between November 1994 and June 2003, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients met the study eligibility criteria: 45 patients received vinorelbine as a single agent and 68 received capecitabine as a single agent. The median duration of therapy was 64 days with vinorelbine and 129 days with capecitabine (P = 0.0012). Median overall survival was 102 days for the vinorelbine group and 188 days for the capecitabine group (P < 0.0001). Survival at 1 year was 15.6% for the vinorelbine group and 28.4% for the capecitabine group (P = 0.017). Twenty-seven patients received both agents sequentially; and in this group, the median duration of therapy was 110 days (87 days with vinorelbine and 138 days with capecitabine), and the median overall survival was 390 days. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that patients with tumors previously treated with both anthracycline and taxane can still obtain significant survival benefit from further chemotherapy. The results indicate that capecitabine may be superior to vinorelbine in this setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".