Palliative oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy after exposure to oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting for colon cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
753 Background: Little is known regarding the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for metastatic colon cancer patients who have already received adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 22 consecutive patients who developed recurrence after adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer and received another course of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for their metastatic disease. The main endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 635 patients received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer at the British Columbia Cancer Agency from 2006 to 2011. 176 pts recurred, 22 (12.5%) of whom were re-exposed to oxaliplatin in the metastatic scenario. Oxaliplatin in combination with fluoropyrimidine was given as first line in 3 pts (13.6%), as second line in 14 (63.6%), and third line in 5 (22.7%). Median time from the last cycle of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy to the first cycle of palliative oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was 44.3 months. Median PFS and OS were 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-5.1) and 10.0 months (95% CI 5.3-14.6), respectively. There was no difference in PFS for patients who were re-exposed to oxaliplatin in less than 36 months or later than that (3.6 versus 3.1 months, p=0.793, HR=0.88). Conclusions: In this population-based study, only a small proportion of pts who recurred after oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy received oxaliplatin in the metastatic setting. Re-exposure of oxaliplatin in combination with fluoropyrimidine is associated with only modest PFS benefit. Larger studies evaluating the role of oxaliplatin re-exposure are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".