Comparative Effectiveness of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Elderly Colon Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We assessed whether older patients experience the same treatment benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy in a real-world setting as younger patients in clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. The analysis included 3,390 patients, >65 years, diagnosed with stage II or III colon cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2007. Patients were enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B, and had undergone adjuvant treatment with fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV; n=1,368), 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; n=1,398), capecitabine (CAP; n=507), or CAP plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX; n=117) within 3 months of surgery. Differences in patient demographics and disease characteristics by treatment were assessed by chi-square test and ANOVA or t-test. Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score-weighted analyses were used to measure the relative risk of death associated with each treatment. Results: Median time from surgical resection to initiation of treatment was similar across cohorts (44-48 days). Mean treatment duration was longer for 5-FU/LV (149 days) and FOLFOX (144 days) than CAP (121 days) and CAPOX (111 days); p<.0001. In the propensity score-adjusted survival models, patients treated with FOLFOX (HR=0.70; 95%CI=0.55-0.90) and CAPOX (HR=0.44; 95%CI=0.20-0.98) had a significantly lower risk of death than 5FU/LV, while risk of death was similar between CAP and 5-FU/LV. Conclusions: Elderly patients with colon cancer have similar benefits from adjuvant chemotherapies in real-world settings as demonstrated in younger patients in clinical trial settings.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".