Phase II Trial of Capecitabine Plus Erlotinib Versus Capecitabine Alone in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim & methods: Capecitabine monotherapy as palliation for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is generally well tolerated. Adding erlotinib, an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, might improve efficacy versus capecitabine alone. 82 patients received capecitabine alone (Arm 1) or capecitabine with erlotinib (Arm 2). RESULTS: Median time-to-progression (TTP) in Arm 1 was 7.9 months versus 9.2 in Arm 2. In KRAS-wild type (WT) patients TTP was 8.4 and 11.7 months in Arms 1 and 2, respectively. In KRAS-mutated patients TTP was 7.4 and 1.9 months in Arms 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.023). Arm 2 KRAS-WT patients, left-sided primaries, had an overall survival of 16.0 versus 12.1 months in right-sided primaries. CONCLUSION: Adding erlotinib to capecitabine increased TTP by 3.2 months in KRAS-WT patients. This study suggests that erlotinib harms patients with KRAS-mutated advanced CRC while it may provide benefit to those with KRAS-WT CRC. Further study of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with left-sided KRAS-WT CRC is warranted.
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".