Randomized Intergroup Trial of Cisplatin-Paclitaxel Versus Cisplatin-Cyclophosphamide in Women With Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Three-Year Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A randomized trial conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG, study #111) in the United States showed a better outcome for patients with advanced ovarian cancer on the paclitaxel-cisplatin regimen than for those on a standard cyclophosphamide-cisplatin regimen. Before considering the paclitaxel-cisplatin regimen as the new "standard," a group of European and Canadian investigators planned a confirmatory phase III trial. METHODS: This intergroup trial recruited 680 patients with broader selection criteria than the GOG #111 study and administered paclitaxel as a 3-hour instead of a 24-hour infusion; progression-free survival was the primary end point. Patient survival was analyzed by use of the Kaplan-Meier technique. Treatment effects on patient survival were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The overall clinical response rate was 59% in the paclitaxel group and 45% in the cyclophosphamide group; the complete clinical remission rates were 41% and 27%, respectively; both differences were statistically significant (P =.01 for both). At a median follow-up of 38.5 months and despite a high rate of crossover (48%) from the cyclophosphamide arm to the paclitaxel arm at first detection of progression of disease, a longer progression-free survival (log-rank P =.0005; median of 15.5 months versus 11.5 months) and a longer overall survival (log-rank P =. 0016; median of 35.6 months versus 25.8 months) were seen in the paclitaxel regimen compared with the cyclophosphamide regimen. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong and confirmatory evidence from two large randomized phase III trials to support paclitaxel-cisplatin as the new standard regimen for treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".