XELOX compared to FOLFOX4: Survival and response results from XELOX-1/ NO16966, a randomized phase III trial of first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4030 Background: In a phase II study in untreated MCRC patients, XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) appeared to have similar efficacy compared with previously published FOLFOX4 data [1]. We therefore started a phase III 2-arm open-label non-inferiority study comparing XELOX with FOLFOX4. In 2003 the addition of bevacizumab (Bev) to irinotecan/5-FU/LV was shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival [2]. We then amended our trial to a 2x2 partially blinded study to assess the addition of Bev. Methods: Original 2-arm study: XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 iv, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid oral d1- 14, q3w) vs. FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin, 5-FU, leucovorin as described previously) [3]. In August 2003, amended to 2x2 partially blinded study: by adding Bev 7.5 mg/kg iv q3w or placebo (Pla) to XELOX and Bev 5 mg/kg iv q2w or Pla to FOLFOX4. Results: The original 2-arm study recruited 634 pts; after transition to 2x2, an additional 1400 patients were recruited. We previously reported non-inferiority in terms of PFS of XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 for the whole study population [4]. With 404 events, the overall survival data from the original 2-arm study are mature and show a HR for XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 of 0.93 (97.5% CI, 0.74–1.16). The response rates by investigator and independent review for the whole study population are shown in the table . Conclusions: XELOX is non-inferior to FOLFOX4. Overall survival data for the whole 2034 patient study population will be presented at the meeting. *no response assessment. 1. Cassidy J et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2084–91. 2. Hurwitz H et al. N Eng J Med 2004;350:2335–42 3. De Gramont A et al. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2938–47. 4. Cassidy J et al. Ann Oncol 2006;17(Suppl. 9):LBA3. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".