MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retrospective review of FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (bev) for patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Reviewing a single-center standard clinical practice.

2014· article· en· W2589373985 on OpenAlexaff
Jean A. Maroun, Horia Marginean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOLFIRIMedicineBevacizumabColorectal cancerInternal medicineOncologySurgeryIrinotecanCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

434 Background: Use of bev with FOLFIRI proved, in clinical trials, to be well tolerated and clinically effective in mCRC pts. In this single-center retrospective review we assess outcomes of mCRC pts on standard first-line treatment with FOLFIRI alone and FOLFIRI bev in routine care. Methods: Patients treated with FOLFIRI at TOHCC from Jan 1, 2004 to Aug 10, 2010 on a first-line mCRC were followed until August 10, 2012. According to bev availability three groups of pts can be identified: treated with FOLFIRI bev and treated with FOLFIRI alone before and after bev availability (Sept 5, 2005). Results: Of 526 pts, 470 (89%) were eligible; 176 (37%) treated with FOLFIRI with bev and 294 (63%) with FOLFIRI alone—127 (43%) before and 167 (57%) after bev availability. At the start of FOLFIRI therapy there was no significant difference among the 3 groups: median age 62 (range 36-83), 61 (32-81), 64 (28-85) years, male 54%, 72%, 64%, respectively. Pts treated with FOLFIRI bev received a median 19 cycles (range 2-78) of FOLFIRI and a median of 15 cycles (range 2-63) of bev; 89 (51%) discontinued bev before FOLFIRI. Pts treated with FOLFIRI alone received a median 12 cycles (range 3-35) before bev availability and 13 cycles (2-48) after. Toxicity was responsible for at least 1 dose adjustment in 146 (83%) pts on FOLFIRI bev and 215 (73%) pts on FOLFIRI alone. Bev was held in 95 (54%) pts; once 35%, twice 25%. The median time off bev was 37 days. Median PFS was 17 months (95%CI 13-20) for patients treated with FOLFIRI bev. When we consider patients treated with FOLFIRI before bev availability median PFS was 13 mo (95%CI 10-17) and 14 mo (95%CI 10-16) when we consider pts post bev availability. Over a period of 3 years the survival rates in three groups of pts (FOLFIRI bev, FOLFIRI alone before bev availability, FOLFIRI alone post bev availability) were 1 year 90%, 77%, and 78%; 2 years 67%, 49%, and 56%; 3 years 54% , 31%, and 44%. Conclusions: Pts treated with FOLFIRI bev received more cycles of chemotherapy however with more dose adjustments. There is a relevant benefit in terms of PFS and a more substantial advantage in terms of 1, 2 and 3 years survival rates with the addition of bev to FOLFIRI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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