MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capecitabine (X) compared to X + erlotinib (E) as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): Interim efficacy results from a randomized phase II study

2007· article· en· W2242926421 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Vincent, Ian G. Kerr, B. Dingle, Mary J. MacKenzie, Michael Sanatani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineInternal medicineNauseaAdverse effectOxaliplatinColorectal cancerGastroenterologyClinical endpointDiscontinuationInterim analysisOncologyRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

14560 Background: The oral fluoropyrimidine X (Xeloda®) has efficacy, safety and convenience benefits vs. 5-FU/LV in adjuvant / first-line CRC. E (Tarceva®) inhibits epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which predicts poor prognosis. A randomized open-label phase II study was performed to establish activity of X alone vs. X + E (XE) in first-line. Methods: Pts (ECOG PS 0–2 and/or elevated LDH) with MCRC not eligible for immediate surgical metastatectomy and unwilling/unable to undergo combination chemotherapy were randomized to X (1000mg/m2/d bid d1–14 q3w) or XE (X 1000mg/m2/d bid d1–14 q3w + E 150mg/d). A third arm (E alone) was included but dropped after 13 pts, following safety committee review of progressions at first CT scan. Primary endpoint: time to progression (TTP). Results: 59 pts (median age 65y, range 46–84; 44 M, 15 F) have been accrued (X=21; XE=25; E=13). Mean time on study: 3.8 months (range 0.2–12). 9 pts are on active treatment, 21 pts on follow-up and 29 pts have died. Interim efficacy results are available for 50 pts (X n=15; XE n=22, E n=13). There were no significant differences in response rate, median TTP (4.9 vs. 9.2 months) and median overall survival (18.2 vs. 15.1 months) for X vs. XE. Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) with X were diarrhea, nausea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), angina, dyspnea (all 5%). Corresponding rates of grade 3 AEs with XE were diarrhea (20%), fatigue (16%), stomatitis (12%), HFS (8%), vomiting (8%), dehydration (8%), thrombosis, weight loss, decreased appetite, dry eyes, headache, anxiety, abdominal pain, anorexia, hyponatremia (all 4%). The only grade 4 AEs were skin rash (4%) and subjective weakness (4%) - both XE. Conclusions: Interim results indicate that XE is at least as effective as X alone in first-line MCRC. Recruitment is continuing and further follow-up may help fully determine the potential benefits of adding E to X. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207