MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of irinotecan and oxaliplatin on overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): A population- based study

2007· article· en· W2590523665 on OpenAlexaff
Howard J. Lim, C. P. Fitzgerald, Sharlene Gill, Barbara Melosky, Caroline Speers, Jeff Barnett, Hagen F. Kennecke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanOxaliplatinColorectal cancerInternal medicineOncologyPopulationChemotherapyCohortCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4077 Background: Over the past 10 years, chemotherapeutic options for MCRC has significantly expanded from 5-FU based therapy, to include irinotecan and oxaliplatin. The effect of the availability of these treatments on overall survival is evaluated among patients in 3 time cohorts referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA). Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed metastatic colorectal cancer referred to the BCCA in 1995/96, 2000 and 2003/04 were included. In 1995/96, 5-FU was the only palliative chemotherapy agent available at BCCA and irinotecan and oxaliplatin were available in 2000 and 2003, respectively. A one year period was used for the irinotecan cohort to minimize overlap between groups. Overall survival estimates were generated using the Kaplan Meier method. Survival was calculated from time of diagnosis of distant metastatic disease to either death or last contact date. Results: Cohorts were generally similar, however, a significantly higher proportion of patients received chemotherapy in more recent eras ( Table 1 ). Only 25% of patients received both irinotecan and oxaliplatin in 2003/4 and only 10 % received biologic therapies. An improvement in median survival of 3.6 months was observed. The improvement in the treated subgroup was 4.2 months. Outcomes of patients untreated with chemotherapy were unchanged between cohorts. Conclusions: In this population based study, the proportion of patients with MCRC treated with chemotherapy significantly increased between 1995/6 and 2000/2003/4. Patients treated with chemotherapy experienced a 4.2 month increase in median survival in 2003/4 compared to 1995/6. Survival improvements were only significant in the time period when all three effective chemotherapies (5FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) were available. As bevacizumab was not available until 2006, its survival impact in this population is not yet known. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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