MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of prior platinum on patients receiving salvage systemic therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC).

2016· article· en· W2589756810 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Sonpavde, Gregory R. Pond, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo, Carlo Buonerba, Antonio Rozzi, Gaetano Lanzetta, Andrea Necchi, Patrizia Giannatempo, Daniele Raggi, Kazumasa Matsumoto, Toni K. Choueiri, Stephanie A. Mullane, Günter Niegisch, Peter Albers, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Hiroshi Kitamura, Haruki Kume, Joaquim Bellmunt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxaneMedicineCarboplatinSalvage therapyChemotherapyOncologyCisplatinInternal medicineGemcitabineSurgeryUrologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

386 Background: Trials of salvage therapy for advanced UC have required prior platinum-based therapy. This practice requires scrutiny since non-platinum-based first-line therapy may be offered to cisplatin-ineligible patients (pts). We examined the impact of prior exposure to first-line platinum vs. non-platinum based chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) with salvage systemic chemotherapy. Methods: Data of pts receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy were collected retrospectively or from trials. Data on prior first-line platinum exposure were required in addition to the known prognostic factors: treatment free interval, hemoglobin, performance status, albumin and liver metastasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate their association with OS after accounting for salvage therapy with single agent chemotherapy or combination chemotherapy. Results: Data was obtained from 455 pts exposed to prior platinum and 37 pts not exposed to prior platinum. In the group exposed to prior platinum, salvage therapy consisted of a single agent taxane (n = 184) and taxane containing combination chemotherapy (n = 271). In the group not exposed to prior platinum, salvage therapy consisted of single agent taxane or vinflunine (n = 20), single agent 5-fluorouracil (n = 1), taxane containing combination chemotherapy (n = 12), carboplatin-based combinations (n = 2) and cisplatin-based combinations (n = 2). The median OS for the prior platinum group was 7.8 (95% CI: 7.0, 8.1) months (mo), and for the prior non-platinum group was 9.0 (6.0, 11.0) mo (p = 0.50). In a multivariable analysis including major prognostic factors and after controlling for single agent or combination salvage chemotherapy, prior platinum vs. no prior platinum exposure conferred no independent impact on OS (HR 1.10 [0.75, 1.64], p = 0.62). Conclusions: Prior platinum vs. non-platinum based chemotherapy did not confer a prognostic impact on OS after accounting for major prognostic factors in pts receiving salvage systemic chemotherapy for advanced UC. Lack of exposure to prior platinum should not disqualify pts from inclusion in trials of salvage therapy after accounting for the 5 known prognostic factors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→