MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comorbidity and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): Results from NCIC CTG PA.3-A phase III trial of erlotinib plus gemcitabine (E+G) versus gemcitabine (G) alone.

2010· article· en· W2272598965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael M. Vickers, E. D. Powell, Timothy R. Asmis, Derek J. Jonker, Chris J. O’Callaghan, D. Tu, Wendy R. Parulekar, Malcolm J. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityInternal medicineGemcitabineErlotinibProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisCancerOncologyMultivariate analysisEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4079 Background: The interaction between comorbidity, age and performance status (PS) in patients with APC receiving chemotherapy has yet to be fully explored, but is of clinical importance. A previous analysis of NCIC CTG PA.3 revealed that venous thromboembolism (VTE) as a comorbidity had a negative impact on survival. We further explored comorbidity (aside from VTE), age and PS as predictors of treatment toxicity and outcome in patients receiving G ± E. Methods: Comorbidity was evaluated retrospectively by 2 physicians (independently) using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a previously validated measure of comorbidity based on the presence or absence of index medical conditions (VTE not part of index). CCI was correlated with demographic data (age, gender, race), baseline pain intensity, treatment, PS, and OS by chi-square test or Cox model. Results: 569 patients were included; 47% were ≥ 65 years, 34% had comorbidities and 70% had an ECOG PS ≥ 1 at randomization. In univariate analysis of all covariates, higher ECOG PS (PS > 0) was associated with age ≥ 65 yrs (p = 0.009) and age ≥ 65 yrs was associated with CCI > 0 (p = 0.02). When all patients were combined, neither age nor comorbidity was significantly associated with OS. Erlotinib and gemcitabine significantly improved OS compared with gemcitabine alone for patients < 65 yrs of age (adjusted HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.94; p = 0.01) and those with CCI > 0 (adjusted HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.97; p = 0.03). Interaction test trended towards significance for age (p = 0.08), but not for comorbidity (p = 0.2) as predictors of OS benefit from the addition of E to G. Toxicity analysis of the E+G group revealed a higher rate of grade ≥ 3 infections in patients ≥ 65 yrs (p = 0.02) and those with CCI > 0 (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Younger age may, but comorbidity does not predict for OS benefit from the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine. In the E+G group, age and comorbidity were associated with toxicity. Further investigation is required to determine the prognostic/predictive role of comorbidity in the treatment of solid tumors. Refinement of comorbidity indices for specific tumor sites may also be indicated. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Position Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Amgen, UCB Canada

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→