MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generalizability of results from oncology clinical trials: Toxicity of irinotecan-based regimens in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2008· article· en· W2590820075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent C. Tam, Sara Rask, Tulay Koru‐Sengul, Sukhbinder Dhesy‐Thind

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanFOLFIRIInternal medicineColorectal cancerOncologyClinical trialPopulationClinical endpointCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6633 Background: The relevance of oncology clinical trial results in clinical practice depends on whether the trial participants are similar to the entire population of patients with the malignancy and whether the patients are treated similarly in both circumstances. Irinotecan treatments are associated with high rates of severe diarrhea, and may be even more toxic in patients with poor performance status and advanced age, who are usually not included in clinical trials. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed including all non-trial patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan-based chemotherapy (irinotecan monotherapy, FOLFIRI, IFL, XELIRI) from January 2004 to September 2006 at Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We aimed to determine the toxicity of these irinotecan regimens in clinical practice compared to those published in corresponding large phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea. A subgroup analysis of elderly patients older than 75 years of age was also conducted. Results: A total of 206 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. 18 patients (9%) were older than 75 years of age, while 21 (10%) and 7 (3%) had an ECOG performance status of 2 and 3, respectively. The rates of grade 3/4 diarrhea for FOLFIRI (n = 103), IFL (n = 14), irinotecan monotherapy (n = 71) and XELIRI (n = 18) were 11%, 14%, 21% and 17%, respectively, compared to 10% (Colucci, 2005), 23% (Saltz, 2000), 31% (Saltz, 2000) and 20% (Patt, 2007) in the clinical trials. The rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia in our study were 22%, 14%, 18% and 11%, respectively. The number of patients with at least one hospital admission for adverse effects from irinotecan chemotherapy were 11%, 21%, 18% and 6%, respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea in patients 75 years of age and younger was 15% compared to 11% for patients older than 75 years of age. Conclusions: Overall, the toxicity rates of irinotecan chemotherapy in non-trial patients do not appear to be in excess of those quoted in published clinical trials. This may be due to a cautious patient selection process on the part of the prescribing oncologists at our institution. 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)0.279
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.583
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2790.583
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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