Survival Benefit From Up-Front Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan/Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Is It Just a Now-or-Never Result?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TO THE EDITOR: I read with interest the updated analysis of the overall survival results according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutational status from the CRYSTAL (Cetuximab Combined With Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer) trial. 1 Thestudydemonstratedastatisticallysignificantandclinicallymeaningful increase of 3.5 months of life in patients with KRAS wild-type tumorstreatedwithinitialfluorouracil,leucovorin,andirinotecan(FOLFIRI)/cetuximab.However,wasthisafunctionoftheuseofcetuximab in first-line therapy or simply a result of the use of anti‐epidermal growthfactorreceptor(EGFR)monoclonalantibodiessomewherein the course of the disease? Earlier trials in metastatic colorectal cancer clearly demonstrated that the initial use of multiple drugs in combination was no better from a survival perspective than the sequential useofthesamedrugs. 2,3 Also,theNationalCancerInstituteofCanada CO17trial 4 revealedthatsingle-agentcetuximabadded4.7monthsof survival benefit in individuals with KRAS wild-type tumors when given after all standard chemotherapy failed. Because only approximately30%ofpatientsintheFOLFIRIcontrolarminthecurrenttrial ever received an anti-EGFR drug in the course of their illness, it is difficult to attribute the survival gain to the addition of cetuximab to first-line FOLFIRI chemotherapy. It is equally plausible that the survival benefit was simply a function of the fact that all patients in the
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".