Efficacy of a modified regimen of gemcitabine and cisplatin among women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the efficacy, side effects and progression-free interval of a modified regimen of the combination ofgemcitabine and cisplatin among women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Twenty-eight women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancers were treated withgemcitabine (500 mg/m 2 ) followed by cisplatin (50 mg/m 2 ) on days one and eight every three weeks. Patients’ demographics,response, side effects, and progression-free interval were recorded. Result: The median age of patients was 61 (range 44-74 years). Twenty-three (82.1%) patients had platinum-sensitive and five(17.9%) had platinum-resistant tumors. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was two (range 1-4) and ninepatients had > three prior regimens. The median number of cycles was six (range 2-10). Seventeen (60.7%) patients respondedto chemotherapy (11 complete and six partial), six had stable disease and five had progression. The response rate was 69.6%and 20% among women with platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant tumors, respectively ( P = .024). The median (range)progression-free interval was six (2-12) and nine (4-12) months among all patients and patients who responded to chemotherapy,respectively. Four patients had dose reductions, four had delays and three had their chemotherapy terminated secondary to toxicityor patient desire. There were no chemotherapy-related mortality or hospital admissions. The incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia,anemia, thrombocytopenia, and nausea or vomiting was 32.1%, 10.7%, 35.7%, and 10.7%, respectively. Conclusion: The combination gemcitabine and cisplatin is highly effective among women with recurrent ovarian cancerincluding those who are heavily pre-treated and is reasonably tolerated. Although, the combination is effective among womenwith plantinum-resistant tumors, these women have a lower response than women with platinum-sensitive tumors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".