Long-term results of concurrent gemcitabine (G) and radiotherapy (GRT) for locally advanced (LA) or high-risk resected (R) pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4101 Background: G is active against pancreatic carcinoma and is a potent radiosensitizer. We present extended follow up data from a phase I/II study of patients treated with combination GRT. Methods: Eligible patients had either LA or high-risk resected [R] pancreatic cancer [positive nodes or positive margin]. 28 were enrolled in a Phase I study of increasing doses of radiotherapy (35 Gy [n = 7]/43.75 Gy [n = 11]/52.5 Gy [n = 10] given over 4, 5 or 6 weeks, respectively in 1.75 Gy fractions) concurrently with 40 mg/m2 gemcitabine biweekly. Subsequently 35 were treated with induction gemcitabine (G) 1000 mg/m2 7/8 weeks followed by concurrent bi-weekly gemcitabine (40 mg/m2) with 52.5 Gy (30 fractions of 1.75 Gy over 6 weeks). In total there were 63 patients (31 LA and 32 R) treated between March 1999–July 2001. Results: In the LA population the best response observed was CR - 1, PR - 2, SD - 10, PD - 10. GRT was not delivered to 8 patients due to progression on G alone (n = 5) or patient request (n = 3). By intent to treat analysis, the median survival in LA disease was 15.1 months and the 2 year survival was 19%. In the resected population the median time to progression was 14.3 months, the median survival was 17.9 months and the 5 year survival was 19%. The treatment was generally well tolerated during both the induction G and the GRT ( Table ). Conclusion: Survival for both LA and HR patients with this concurrent gemcitabine radiotherapy regimen is promising and warrants further investigation. [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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".