Safety and Toxicity Analysis of Oxaliplatin Combined With Fluorouracil or as a Single Agent in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two consecutive compassionate use studies of oxaliplatin were conducted in the United States and Canada in more than 5000 patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal carcinoma who had experienced treatment failure after at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The main focus was safety. Patients were assigned to treatment with either single-agent oxaliplatin or oxaliplatin in combination with fluorouracil (FU) and with or without leucovorin (LV) in various regimens. Response data collection was not a trial objective, but time to treatment failure (TTF) was recorded in the first cohort (1370 patients). RESULTS: All treatment regimens were well tolerated, with an overall incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity of 23.2%, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related gastrointestinal toxicity of 26.4% (including diarrhea, vomiting, and mucositis), and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity 3.9%. Similar results were reported in the second cohort (3806 patients), in which the eligibility criteria were much less restrictive. In the first cohort (in which 83% received prior irinotecan), median TTF was 14 weeks, and was similar for the five regimens combining oxaliplatin and FU with or without LV, but significantly shorter for the single-agent oxaliplatin arm. The overall dose-intensity of oxaliplatin was maintained at 85.5% (range, 80.6% to 94.3%) of that prescribed by protocol (average 36.7 mg/m2/wk). CONCLUSION: These data in a heavily pretreated patient population confirm that oxaliplatin is safe when used as a single agent or with a variety of FU-based regimens as salvage therapy in patients with advanced colorectal 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".