MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systemic therapy in elderly patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: Sub-analysis of ABC-02 and 10 other prospective studies.

2016· article· en· W2273978427 on OpenAlexaff
Mairéad G. McNamara, John Bridgewater, Andre Lopes, Harpreet Wasan, David Malka, Henrik R. Jensen, Takuji Okusaka, Jennifer J. Knox, Dorothea Wagner, David Cunningham, Jenny Shannon, David Goldstein, Markus Moehler, Tanios Bekaii‐Saab, Juan W. Valle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBiliary tract cancerCohortProspective cohort studyCancerCombination therapySurgeryGastroenterologyGemcitabine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

382 Background: Outcomes in elderly patients (pts), with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) receiving palliative chemotherapy are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of monotherapy vs combination therapy in elderly pts with ABTC in ABC-02, and 10 other prospective studies of systemic therapy. Methods: Multivariable analysis was employed to explore impact of therapy on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 2 age cohorts; non-elderly ( < 70 yrs) vs elderly ( ≥ 70 yrs). Results: Overall, 1163 pts were recruited from Jan 97-Dec 13. Median age of entire cohort was 63 yrs (range 23-85); 260 (22%) were ≥ 70 yrs, 18 (2%) were ≥ 80 yrs. In pts ≥ 70 yrs; 208 had ECOG PS 0-1, 129; male and 174; metastatic disease. Combination therapy was platinum-based in 9 studies. Among the 260 pts ≥ 70 yrs, 182 (70%) received combination therapy. Baseline characteristics/therapy received was balanced in both age cohorts. Median follow-up time for all pts was 42 months (95% CI 37-51). Median PFS for those < 70 yrs and ≥ 70 yrs was 6.0 (95% CI 5.5-6.4) and 5.0 months (95% CI 4.2-6.4) respectively. Median OS for pts < 70 yrs and ≥ 70 yrs was 10.2 (95% CI 9.6-11.1) and 8.8 months (95% CI 7.9-9.6) respectively. For the entire cohort, the PFS and OS were significantly better in those pts receiving combination therapy: HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.76, P < 0.0001 and HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.82, P < 0.0001 respectively, and in group ≥ 70 yrs: HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.77, P = 0.001) and HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.43-0.85, P = 0.004) respectively. In pts < 70 yrs, stage (locally advanced vs metastatic) and ECOG PS were prognostic for PFS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04 respectively) and OS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001 respectively) and in pts ≥ 70 yrs, they were prognostic for OS (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02 respectively). There was no evidence of interaction between age ( < 70 yrs and ≥ 70 yrs) and treatment (monotherapy and combination therapy) for PFS (P = 0.66) or OS (P = 0.75). Conclusions: In ABTC, PFS and OS in elderly pts receiving palliative chemotherapy (monotherapy or combination therapy) are comparable with that of non-elderly pts, therefore age in isolation should not influence treatment decisions. Clinical trial participation among elderly pts with ABTC is appropriate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207