MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of relative dose intensity and G-CSF use in the adjuvant treatment of resected colon cancer.

2016· article· en· W2590502787 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Breadner, Frances Whiston, Larry Stitt, Stephen Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreCancer Care OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFOLFOXCapecitabineOxaliplatinColorectal cancerInternal medicineRegimenOncologyFluorouracilStage (stratigraphy)AdjuvantChemotherapyCancerGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

752 Background: The benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC) are well established. However, the consequences of dose delays and modifications are not well established. Relative dose intensity (RDI) and dose scheduling have been shown to have prognostic significance in a number of cancers. We examine the effect of RDI, dose intensity (DI) and dose delays on disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in stage III CC. Furthermore, we investigate the role of G-CSF in CC and its role in preserving RDI, and its effect on outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for patients with stage III CC seen at a Canadian academic cancer center between 2006 and 2011. Patients who received at least three cycles of FOLFOX or at least two cycles capecitabine were included in the analysis. The RDI and DI were calculated and examined for correlation with DFS and OS. The influence of G-CSF on RDI and DI was also investigated. Results: FOLFOX was used more commonly than capecitabine, 64% vs. 36%. Within the FOLFOX regimen median RDI for oxaliplatin was 76.3%, and 83.5% for 5-FU. Median capecitabine RDI was 73.8%. Median DI were similar at 75.4%, 86.5%, and 69.1%, respectively. 60% of patients receiving FOLFOX got over 80% of their intended dose, while only 29% of patients receiving capecitabine achieved this DI. 3-year DFS was higher when RDI or DI was > 80%, compared to ≤ 80%, for each chemotherapeutic, however the differences did not reach significance. 3-year OS trended towards being higher in patients with an RDI and DI > than 80%, however there were limited events in these groups. Over half of patients on FOLFOX experienced a dose delay, 56.9%, most of whom then received G-CSF, 64.9%. Patients who received G-CSF had a higher DI than those who did not, 74.9% and 87.4% versus 66.5% and 76.8%, for the oxaliplatin and 5-FU components, respectively. 3-year DFS and OS was higher in patients who received G-CSF versus those who did not, 78.3% and 97.5% vs. 69.8% and 91.5%, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with stage III colon cancer an RDI or DI is associated with improved 3-year DFS and OS, although the difference did not reach significance in our review. G-CSF as secondary prophylaxis improves RDI, DI, DFS and OS.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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