Meta-analysis of gender effect for first-line chronomodulated 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (ChronoFLO) compared with FOLFOX or constant infusion (conventional delivery, CONV) against metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC) in three international controlled phase III randomized trials (RT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4112 Background: Gender predicted for the most effective schedule in a RT of ChronoFLO vs CONV against MCC: overall survival (OS) was significantly increased in men on chronoFLO vs FOLFOX, whereas the reverse was found in women (Giacchetti, JCO 2006). Methods: To assess the relevance of gender for patient (pt) outcome, meta-analysis was performed on individual pt data (IPD) from 3 RT in 845 MCC pts treated with chronoFLO vs CONV (346 F, 499 M at 36 centers in 1990–2002)(Lévi, JNCI 1994; Lancet 1997). Data bases were merged and updated at 9 y after inclusion of the 1st pt. Main prognostic factors were comparable in each RT according to gender and treatment arm (median age: 61y; PS=0, 46% pts; liver M, 85% pts; liver involvement >25%, 41% pts; lung M, 37% pts; CEA>10, 56% pts). Results: No significant difference was found according to delivery schedule or gender in the whole population for Response Rate (RR), Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and OS. However, men on chronoFLO had highest RR, longest PFS and OS. PFS and OS were highest in women on CONV ( Table ). The rate of complete macroscopic resections of liver metastases (R0+R1) was 12.5% in men on chronoFLO vs 7.8–8.5% in men on CONV or in women on either schedule. A complete histologic response of liver metastases was documented in 2.1% of the men on chronoFLO vs 0–1.1% in the other groups. The relative risk of an earlier death in men vs women was 0.76 [95% CL, 0.91 to 0.94] on chronoFLO and 1.24 [0.99 to 1.56] on CONV. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis of 3 RT in MCC with a minimum follow up of 5 years confirms that men benefit from chronoFLO as compared to CONV delivery, with regard to long term outcome and medico-surgical strategy. ChronoFLO should be preferred to conventional oxaliplatin-5-FU-LV schedules in men with MCC. Support: ARTBC Internationale, P. Brousse Hospital, Villejuif, France. [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 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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".