MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety and efficacy of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations in mCRC patients >65 years compared with those ≤65: The BICC-C study

2007· article· en· W2597369096 on OpenAlexaff
José Barrueco, J. Marshall, E. Mitchell, Rafal Wierzbicki, Vinod Ganju, Mark Jeffery, Josephine Schultz, Donald Richards, Raoudha Soufi‐Mahjoubi, Chana Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsLakeridge Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFOLFIRIIrinotecanBevacizumabInternal medicineRegimenPlaceboSurgeryGastroenterologyColorectal cancerChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4076 Background: BICC-C was a multicenter, randomized study that assessed efficacy & safety of irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC patients. This study showed that FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI+bev were superior to their comparators (Proc ASCO 2006). We conducted a secondary analysis of efficacy & safety among all patients >65 years compared with those =65. Methods: Pts were randomized to: infusional FOLFIRI, modified bolus IFL (mIFL), or CapeIri; and concurrent celecoxib or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The protocol was amended in April 2004 and bevacizumab (bev) was added to the FOLFIRI and mIFL arms whereas CapeIri was discontinued. Period 1 (P1) and Period 2 (P2) designate subjects enrolled before or after the amendment. Results: Of 430 pts enrolled in P1, 150 were age >65 (median 71; range, 66–87) and 280 were = 65 (median, 56; 20–65). Of 117 pts in P2, 75 were >65 (median, 73; 66–84) and 42 were = 65 (median, 54; 32–65). No significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the two age groups. Results for P1: median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.5 and 6.7 mos; and median overall survival (OS) was 18.8 and 19.2 for >65 and =65, respectively. For the FOLFIRI regimen specifically median PFS was 7.5 and 7.6 mos, and median OS was 20.1 and 24.3 mos for >65 and =65, respectively. Results for P2: median PFS was 10.3 and 10.6 mos; and median OS was 19.8 and 23 mos for >65 and =65, respectively. For the FOLFIRI+bev regimen specifically median PFS was 11.1 and 11.2 mos for >65 and =65 respectively, and median OS has not yet been reached for either subgroup at time of analysis. Common grade = 3 AEs are listed below. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety for first line irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine regimens and for FOLFIRI & FOLFIRI+bev, specifically, did not differ for older and younger mCRC patients. [Table: see text] [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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→