Efficacy and safety according to age subgroups in AVEX, a randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3521 Background: Elderly patients (pts) are underrepresented in clinical trials. The open-label phase III trial AVEX evaluated the benefit of adding bevacizumab (BEV) to capecitabine (cape) in elderly pts with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This analysis explores clinical outcomes by age subgroup. Methods: In AVEX, 280 pts ≥70 y with mCRC for whom single-agent chemotherapy was deemed appropriate, were randomized to first-line cape (1000 mg/m2bid days 1–14) alone (n=140) or with BEV (7.5 mg/kg) q3w (n=140). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), overall response rate, and safety. The study was powered to show a difference in PFS but not OS. A post hoc analysis was conducted to assess PFS, OS, and safety in pts 70–74 y, 75–79 y, and ≥80 y. Results: Median age was 76 y (range, 70–87). In the overall population, BEV + cape significantly prolonged PFS compared with cape (median 9.1 vs 5.1 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.69; p<.001). Differences in OS did not reach statistical significance in the overall population (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57–1.09; p=.182). Treatment was well tolerated. Results according to age are shown (Table). Conclusions: The addition of BEV to cape was associated with significant improvements in PFS in the overall elderly mCRC population and within age subgroups. The safety profile of BEV + cape was consistent across age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT00484939. [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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".