Induction treatment in first-line with chemotherapy + bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the gercor-DREAM phase III study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
457 Background: the DREAM study compares a maintenance therapy with bevacizumab (bev) alone or with the erlotinib after a bev-based induction therapy with FOLFOX, or biweekly XELOX or FOLFIRI. Efficacy of the induction treatment is reported here. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer received one of the following regimen (investigator’s choice): mFOLFOX7-bev, biweekly mXELOX-bev or FOLFIRI-bev. Oxaliplatin was administered no more than 6 cycles. In the 1st cohort, pts received 3 months (m) of FOLFOX-bev or mXELOX-bev before randomization. In the 2nd cohort, pts received 3m of FOLFOX-bev or mXELOX-bev then 3 m of fluoropyrimidine-bev, or 6 m of FOLFIRI-bev before randomization. Pts with disease control were then randomized between bev alone or with erlotinib until progression. Results: FOLFOX-bev was administered in 424 pts, mXELOX-bev in 203 pts and FOLFIRI-bev in 67 pts. Pts characteristics for the whole population are: median age 63 yrs (26-80), male/female 59.8%/40.2%, synchronous mets/metachronous 82.6%/17.4%, PS 0/1/2 58%/39%/3%, LDH>UNL 53%, platelets >400000/mm3 27%. Patients received a median nb of 6 cycles of oxaliplatin for FOLFOX-bev and mXELOX-bev, and a median nb of 12 cycles of irinotecan with FOLFIRI-bev. Response rates are respectively 48%, 50% and 63%. Median PFS are respectively 8.61m, 8.97m and 9m. Severe toxicity profiles (grade 3-4) appear to be different according to the schedule : more neutropenia and diarrhea with FOLFIRI-bev, HFS and diarrhea with mXELOX-bev and neuropathy with FOLFOX-bev. Conclusions: Modified biweekly XELOX-bev provides similar efficacy results with FOLFOX-bev, and FOLFIRI-bev as induction therapy in first-line. Clinical trial information: NCT00265824.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".