Efficacy and safety of single agent (SA) or combination (CO) adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in elderly patients with colon cancer: A Canadian Cancer Institute experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14715 Background: AC for colon cancer is recommended in the fit elderly. The pattern of AC use in elderly patients (pts), the toxicity profile, and survival benefit is unclear. We sought to: 1) determine whether patients ≥65 years old with stage III colon cancer were being offered SA or CO AC; 2) evaluate the reason for selecting SA vs. CO AC; 3) evaluate the toxicity profile of SA and CO in the elderly; and 4) determine whether a survival benefit exists for elderly pts receiving CO AC. Methods: Pts ≥65 diagnosed with stage III colon cancer at the Cross Cancer Institute from 2004-2010 were identified from the provincial cancer registry. A retrospective analysis of electronic and paper patient records was performed to identify baseline characteristics, AC protocols used, toxicity, dose reductions, dose delays and survival. Results: 258 pts ≥65 years old were diagnosed and treated with AC from 2004-2010. Of these, 168 were treated with SA and 90 with CO AC. The most common reasons for choosing SA AC were patient preference (64%), comorbidities (17%), and lack of drug coverage by provincial formulary (16%). 93 pts ≥age 75 were treated with SA AC, whereas only 20 pts ≥75 were treated with CO AC. Grade 3 and 4 non-hematologic toxicity was more common with CO AC (43% vs. 27%). 20% of all pts had initial dose reductions, with most common reasons being age and comorbidities. 67%, 71% and 29% received dose delays, reductions or drug discontinuation in the SA group, respectively. 72%, 58% and 34% received dose delays, reductions or drug discontinuation in the CO group respectively. 76% of pts received ≥75% of the expected cumulative dose in the SA group, and 81% in the CO group. The 5 year overall survival (OS) of pts who received <75% of expected AC cycles was 63%, compared to 79% in those who received >75% of expected cycles. The 5 year OS was 73% in pts who received SA AC, compared to 84% in those who received CO AC. Conclusions: In elderly pts treated with AC for stage III colon cancer, SA AC is used more frequently than CO AC, based on age, comorbidities, and patient choice. Toxicity with CO AC in elderly pts is high, but may carry a potential a survival benefit for those who receive it.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".