Superiority of Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Compared With Either Therapy Alone in Patients With Progressive Colorectal Cancer After Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Leucovorin: Interim Results of a Phase III Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In North America, no effective therapy has been available for patients with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer after front-line treatment with irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil (FU), and leucovorin (IFL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed after IFL therapy were randomly assigned to bolus and infusional FU and leucovorin (LV5FU2), single-agent oxaliplatin, or the combination (FOLFOX4). This planned interim analysis evaluated objective response rate (RR), time to tumor progression (TTP), and alleviation of tumor-related symptoms (TRS) in an initial cohort of patients. RESULTS: Between November 2000 and September 2001, 463 patients from 120 sites in North America were randomly assigned to treatment. FOLFOX4 proved superior to LV5FU2 in all measures of clinical efficacy. Objective RRs determined by an independent radiology panel were 9.9% for FOLFOX4 versus 0% for LV5FU2 (Fisher's exact test, P <.0001). Median TTP was 4.6 months for FOLFOX4 versus 2.7 months for LV5FU2 (two-sided, stratified log-rank test, P <.0001). Relief of TRS occurred in 33% of patients treated with FOLFOX4 versus 12% of patients treated with LVFU2 (chi2 test, P <.001). Single-agent oxaliplatin was not superior to LV5FU2 in any measure of efficacy. Patients treated with FOLFOX4 experienced a higher incidence of clinically significant toxicities than patients treated with LV5FU2, but these toxicities were predictable and did not result in a higher rate of treatment discontinuation or 60-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, second-line treatment with FOLFOX4 is superior to treatment with LVFU2 in terms of RR, TTP, and relief of TRS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".