Outcomes of patients treated with capecitabine and temozolamide (CapTem) for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) and non-PNETs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
343 Background: Retrospective studies have demonstrated high response rates among patients with advanced PNETs treated with CapTem while responses are infrequently seen among non-PNETs. The objective of the study was to describe progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among sequential NET patients treated with CapTem and to identify factors associated with response. Methods: Patients who initiated therapy with CapTem between 2009 and 2013 for advanced NETs and referred to one of 6 provincial cancer treatment centers were included. Patients received Cap 2000 mg/m2 day 1-14 and TMZ 200 mg/m2 on days 10-14 every 28 days. Their characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In our cohort, 29 patients (16 male) with a median age of 59 (range 26 – 76) received palliative CapTem, 15 of them as first-line chemotherapy and 14 as subsequent lines. Primary tumors included pancreas (48.3%), small bowel (20.7%), lung (10.3%), unknown (10.3), rectum (6.9%) and appendix (3.4%). Median number of cycles was 3. For the entire cohort, median PFS and OS were 4.7 and 20.2 months, respectively. Although pancreatic NETs (PNETs) had shorter OS (18.8 months versus not reached, p=0.37), their PFS was longer than non-PNETs (4.9 versus 2.8 months, p=0.178). There was no difference in PFS between first or subsequent lines of therapy. Patients with Ki67 above 10% had a shorter PFS when compared to lower Ki67 (3.1 versus 5.5 months, p = 0.028). Three patients had to discontinue CapTem due to poor tolerance (2 intractable nauseas and 1 myocardial infarction). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: CapTem showed good activity among NETs, especially for PNETS, who derived the greatest benefit. Effectiveness was not exclusive to first-line therapy and seems better for well-differentiated tumors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".