Adjuvant sunitinib following chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced esophageal cancer: a phase II trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognosis for locally advanced esophageal cancer is poor despite the use of trimodality therapy. In this phase II study, we report the feasibility, tolerability and efficacy of adjuvant sunitinib. Included were patients with stage IIa, IIB or III cancer of the thoracic esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Neoadjuvant therapy involved Irinotecan (65 mg/m2) + Cisplatin (30 mg/m2) on weeks 1 and 2, 4 and 5, 7 and 8 with concurrent radiation (50 Gy/25 fractions) on weeks 4–8. Sunitinib was commenced 4–13 weeks after surgery and continued for one year. Sixty-one patients were included in the final analysis, 36 patients commenced adjuvant sunitinib. Fourteen patients discontinued sunitinib due to disease recurrence (39%) within the 12-month period, 12 (33%) discontinued due to toxicity, and 3 (8%) requested cessation of therapy. In the overall population, median survival was 26 months with a 2 and 3-year survival rate of 52% and 35%, respectively. The median survival for the 36 patients treated with sunitinib was 35 months and 2-year survival probability of 68%. In a historical control, a prior phase II study with the same trimodality therapy (n = 43), median survival was 36 months, with a 2-year survival of 67%. Initiation of adjuvant sunitinib is feasible, but poorly tolerated, with no signal of additional benefit over trimodality therapy for locally advanced esophageal 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".