MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized trial of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer (BICC-C)

2006· article· en· W2586804150 on OpenAlexaff
Charles S. Fuchs, J. Marshall, Edith P. Mitchell, Rafal Wierzbicki, Vinod Ganju, Mark Jeffery, Josephine Schultz, Donald Richards, B. Wang, M. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsLakeridge Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanCapecitabineClinical endpointBevacizumabFOLFIRICelecoxibNauseaPlaceboGastroenterologyInternal medicineBolus (digestion)Colorectal cancerTolerabilityVomitingRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyAdverse effectCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3506 Background: This multicenter, randomized study assessed efficacy & safety for 3 irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC. In a 3 × 2 factorial design, we also assessed whether celecoxib added to chemotherapy (CT) improved CT efficacy and/or reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts were randomized to: FOLFIRI - irinotecan (I) 180 mg/m 2 , leucovorin (LV) 400 mg/m 2 , 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m 2 , & infusional 5-FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours q 2 wks; modified IFL (m-IFL) - I 125 mg/m 2 , LV 20 mg/m 2 , & bolus 5-FU 500 mg/m 2 wkly × 2, q 3 wks; or CapeIri - I 250 mg/m 2 day 1 & capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 po BID × 14 days, q 3 wks. Pts were also randomized to concurrent celecoxib (400 mg po BID) or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Time to progression (TTP) was the primary endpoint. Results: 430 pts were enrolled from 2/03 to 4/04, prior to an amendment that added bevacizumab to CT arms. Baseline characteristics were balanced. TTP for FOLFIRI (median = 8.2 mos) was significantly better than for either m-IFL (6.0 mos; p = 0.01) or CapeIri (5.7 mos; p = 0.01). Overall survival (OS) also favored FOLFIRI (median = 23.1 mos) compared to either m-IFL (17.6 mos; p=0.10) or CapeIri (18.8 mos; p = 0.19). Common grade ≥ 3 toxicities are listed below. CapeIri had the highest rates of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration & hand-foot syndrome, whereas FOLFIRI had lower rates. Among all 430 pts, median TTP did not differ for pts randomized to celecoxib compared to placebo (6.9 vs 6.9 mos; p=0.71). Median OS was also similar for celecoxib vs placebo (19.5 vs 18.8 mos; p=0.63). CT toxicities did not differ for celecoxib vs placebo. Rates for MI/stroke were 1.5% for celecoxib and 1.9% for placebo. Conclusions: First-line FOLFIRI offers a superior TTP when compared to m-IFL or CapeIri; OS & toxicity analyses also favored FOLFIRI. Celecoxib neither improved CT efficacy nor reduced CT toxicity. Updated survival data & data on pts enrolled after the addition of bevacuzimab will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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