Role of second-line gemcitabine after FOLFIRINOX failure in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
473 Background: Cancer of the exocrine pancreas is a highly lethal malignancy. Based on a phase III study, FOLFIRINOX regimen became the standard first-line treatment for patients with good performance status. However, the optimal management strategy for patients who fail initial FOLFIRINOX remains undefined. We aim at reporting our experience with single-agent gemcitabine as a second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer patients who progressed on FOLFIRINOX. Methods: Patients with advanced exocrine pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received gemcitabine (1.000 mg/m² on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks) until disease progression, as second-line therapy after FOLFIRINOX failure at our institution were retrospectively evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 20 patients were reviewed. Most of them (60%) had metastatic disease while 40% had locally advanced tumors. Median age was 60 years (range 43–74) and 80% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 0 or 1 in 65% and 2 or 3 in 35% of the patients. Median time on prior FOLFIRINOX therapy was 5 months. Median PFS and OS with gemcitabine were 2,0 (95% CI 1,2-2,8) and 5,7 months (95% CI 3,9-7,4), respectively. There were no deaths due to the treatment. Conclusions: In this study, gemcitabine was a reasonable second-line treatment option for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Phase III trials are urgently needed exploring the role of gemcitabine in the second-line setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".