Does gastric acid suppression affect sunitinib efficacy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Renal cell cancer is a chemotherapy-insensitive cancer treated by vascular endothelial growth factor receptor antagonists. Recently, a question has arisen on whether there is an interaction between tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as sunitinib, and acid suppressing agents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients at two tertiary care centers who received sunitinib between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2013. Using electronic systems and a province-wide electronic health records database, medication dispensing records were obtained. A univariate Cox's proportional hazard model determined if acid suppression had effects on progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 383 patient charts reviewed, 231 were included in the study. Patients on intermittent acid suppression, lost to follow-up or received sunitinib for less than one week were excluded from the study. The median age of the study population was 65. Patients who received no acid suppression (n = 186) had a median progression-free survival of 23.6 weeks (95% CI, 19.0-31.9 weeks) and patients who received continuous acid suppression (n = 45) had a median progression-free survival of 18.9 weeks (95% CI, 11.0-23.7 p = 0.04). A median overall survival of 62.4 weeks (95% CI, 42.0-82.7 weeks) was observed in the group with no acid suppression, while a median overall survival of 40.9 weeks (95% CI, 26.1-74.4 weeks) was observed in the continuous acid suppression group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference in progression-free survival and overall survival between the acid suppressed and no acid suppression groups. Further research is required to confirm this potential interaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".