MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adjuvant therapy (AT) with raltitrexed (RAL) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients (pts) intolerant of 5-fluorouracil (5FU)

2006· article· en· W2297369765 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth S. Wilson, Jeff Barnett, Sharlene Gill, Kei‐Siong Khoo, Courtney A. FitzGerald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationInternal medicineFluorouracilToxicityColorectal cancerGastroenterologySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3571 Background: Severe 5FU toxicity in AT of CRC may require discontinuation or change of therapy. RAL, a TS inhibitor, has different toxicity but similar efficacy in metastatic CRC. Excess mortality from RAL in the PETACC trial has limited its role in CRC AT. RAL AT (3 mg/m2 IV q3w) was offered at BCCA to pts with demonstrated intolerance to bolus (Mayo) 5FU. We sought to explore retrospectively the safety & efficacy of RAL AT in these pts. Methods: A search of BCCA Pharmacy & Clinical Records from Oct. 1999 to June 2004 identified CRC pts who received 5FU AT and RAL AT. Data was collected on pt and disease characteristics, therapy & follow-up (FU) status. Kaplan-Meier survival proportions were compared with historical experience. Results: Of 1,456 CRC pts who received 5FU AT, 44 pts (3%) received RAL following 5FU intolerance (42 pts GI/hem toxicity, 2 pts due to angina). Median age was 62.3 y (range 39.8 - 83.2); 31 female; 31 colon primary. Stage III: 39 pts (88.6%); N2: 14 (31.8%). Median # 5FU cycles given prior to RAL was 2 (1 - 4). 21 pts (48%) had only 1 cycle of 5FU before RAL. Grade ≥3 toxicities from 5FU occurred in 39 pts; 17 pts were hospitalised for 2 - 29d (median 8). Twelve of 44 pts also received RT. Median # RAL cycles: 5 (1–8); 77% received >3 cycles; 84% completed all planned RAL. Gr 1, 2, 3 RAL toxicity rates: 55%, 27%, 7% respectively. 1 pt was hospitalised (4 days, FN); no deaths. Median FU of living pts is 4.2 yr (range 1.4 - 6.5). Median survival for all pts is not yet reached. 3 Year Relapse free (RFS) and Overall Survival (OS) proportions were 72% (95% CI 58.5% - 85.5%) and 83.2% (95% CI 71.8% - 94.6%) resp. Stage III 3 Year RFS was 70.8% (95% CI 56.1% - 85.5%) and 3 Year OS was 83.6% (95% CI 71.4% - 95.8%). For N1 & N2 pts, 3 Year RFS was 83.8% (95% CI 69.3% - 98.3%) and 49% (95% CI 22.3% - 75.7%), and OS 91.4% (95% CI 80% - 100%) & 70.7% (95% CI 46.4% - 95%) resp. Conclusions: Severe 5FU intolerance was seen in 3% of pts. RAL AT can be given safely if further 5FU is contraindicated. Outcomes appear similar to historical experience with 5FU AT. [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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207