Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Anti-EGFR Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2010, a panel of Canadian oncologists with particular expertise in colorectal cancer (crc) gathered to develop a consensus guideline on the use of therapies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) in the management of metastatic crc (mcrc). This paper uses a case-based approach to summarize the consensus recommendations developed during that meeting.These are the consensus recommendations:Testing for the KRAS status of the tumour should be performed as soon as an egfr inhibitor is being considered as an option for treatment.Anti-egfr therapies are not recommended for the treatment of patients with tumours showing mutated KRAS status.For a patient with wild-type KRAS and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0-2, whose mcrc has previously been treated with a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, switching to an egfr inhibitor is a recommended strategy.Cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab are all options for third-line therapy in patients with wild-type KRAS, provided that tolerability is acceptable.
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 | 0.053 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".