Panitumumab (Pmab) versus cetuximab (Cmab)/irinotecan (Iri) therapy among patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
640 Background: In British Columbia, use of anti-EGFR therapy for KRAS wt MCRC is limited to patients (pts) previously treated with both irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Physicians may choose either Pmab monotherapy or Cmab/Iri combination therapy. We sought to compare the characteristics and outcomes of all pts treated with Pmab/Cmab referred to 5 provincial cancer centers since July, 2009. Methods: Eligible patients received at least one dose of either Pmab (6mg/kg q2w) or Cetuximab (500mg/m2 q2w) plus Iri (180mg/m2 q2w). Baseline characteristics and systemic therapy were prospectively collected, while ECOG and metastatectomy status were retrospectively collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted from the first day of Pmab/Cmab. Results: Among 178 eligible pts, Pmab was chosen 3 times more often than Cmab/Iri (see table). Pts treated with Cmab/Iri were significantly younger and had better performance status than those treated with Pmab. There were no statistically significant differences in other prognostic variables, and a similar proportion received chemotherapy after Pmab vs. Cmab/Iri. Overall survival was slightly longer among patients receiving Cmab/Iri (8.3 mo), vs. Pmab (7.7 mo) (p=.03). Conclusions: Pmab was chosen more often than Cmab/Iri for similarly eligible patients. Cmab/Iri pts were younger, were more likely to have ECOG performance status 0/1 and achieved a modestly longer overall survival. Either regimen appears to be suitable for previously treated pts with KRAS wt MCRC. [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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".