PANCREOX: A Randomized Phase III Study of Fluorouracil/Leucovorin With or Without Oxaliplatin for Second-Line Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in Patients Who Have Received Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PANCREOX was a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the benefit of FU and oxaliplatin administered as modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) versus infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) in this setting. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed advanced pancreatic cancer who were previously treated with gemcitabine therapy and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were eligible. A total of 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive biweekly mFOLFOX6 or infusional FU/LV until progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Results Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both arms. No difference was observed in PFS (median, 3.1 months v 2.9 months; P = .99). Overall survival (OS) was inferior in patients assigned to mFOLFOX6 (median, 6.1 months v 9.9 months; P = .02). Increased toxicity was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, with grade 3/4 adverse events occurring in 63% of patients who received mFOLFOX6 and 11% of those who received FU/LV. More patients in the mFOLFOX6 arm withdrew from study due to adverse events than in the FU/LV arm (20% v 2%), whereas the use of postprogression therapy was significantly higher in the FU/LV arm (25% v 7%; P = .015). No significant differences were observed in time to deterioration on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 global health scale. Conclusion No benefit was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, administered as mFOLFOX6, versus infusional FU/LV in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with first-line gemcitabine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".