Impact of Complete Response to Chemotherapy on Overall Survival in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Results From Intergroup N9741
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical characteristics and survival outcomes among patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who achieve a complete response (CR) to systemic treatment either alone or with multimodality approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from CRC patients enrolled onto the phase III trial N9741, a National Cancer Institute-funded and Gastrointestinal Cancer Intergroup-sponsored study coordinated by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Patients were randomly assigned to combinations of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) and irinotecan. The three treatment arms consist of IFL (irinotecan + FU/LV), FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin + FU/LV), and IROX (irinotecan + oxaliplatin). Median follow-up was 42.6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-two (4%) of 1,508 patients had a CR to chemotherapy alone, and an additional 32 (2%) had a CR after multimodality treatment. Factors associated with achieving CR with systemic chemotherapy alone included FOLFOX4 treatment, patients with assessable disease, or a single site of metastasis. Continuing protocol treatment beyond two cycles after documentation of CR was not associated with improved survival. The rate of curative intent resection was significantly higher for patients treated with oxaliplatin-containing regimens (P = .02). Median survival was similar between patients with CR after chemotherapy alone (44.3 months) or after multimodality approach (47.4 months; P = .81). CONCLUSION: FOLFOX4 was more likely to produce a CR than were IFL or IROX. Oxaliplatin regimens were more likely to result in successful surgical resections. Patients who have CR to systemic chemotherapy alone can achieve impressive survival outcomes similar to those seen among patients who attained a CR status after multimodality treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".