Are XELOX and FOLFOX equivalent in colorectal cancer? Dose intensity, toxicity, and treatment duration in clinical practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14556 Background: Xelox and Folfox regimens have been shown to be equivalent in clinical trials for colorectal cancers. However, concerns about toxicity induced by Xelox in clinical practice have been reported, resulting in reduced dose intensity. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the dose intensity of Xelox to Folfox in relation to toxicity. Methods: 208 patients were treated in adjuvant (Xelox: n=56, median age 65 years; Folfox: n=40, median age 66 years) or metastatic (Xelox: n=65, median age 66 years; Folfox: n=47 median age 62 years) settings. 90% of patients had ECOG 0-1. Results: In the adjuvant setting, 86% of patients treated with Xelox received a lower dose of the drug up front, compared to only 10% of Folfox-treated patients. Additional dose reductions occurred in subsequent cycles in 23% of Xelox-treated patients (mean relative dose intensity (RDI) Oxaliplatin: 72%; Capecitabine: 74%) but not Folfox-treated patients (mean RDI Oxaliplatin: 85%, 5-FU: 86%). A higher percentage of Folfox-treated patients had toxicities compared to Xelox-treated patients: nausea (30% vs 18%), diarrhea (47% vs 24%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (32% vs 3%). Treatment delays were more frequent in Folfox (40%); mean cumulative delay, 9.4 (range 2.1-52.4) weeks, compared to Xelox (20%); mean cumulative delay, 10.2 (3.1-48.1) weeks. Mean treatment duration was equal (Xelox: 22.8 (3.0-78.1); Folfox: 22.6 (2.3-64.4) weeks). In the metastatic setting, results followed a similar pattern. 75% of Xelox-treated patients received a lower dose up front compared to 33% of Folfox-treated patients. Further dose reductions occurred in 31% of Xelox-treated patients (mean RDI Oxaliplatin: 70%; Capecitabine: 67%) compared to 20% of Folfox-treated patients (mean RDI oxaliplatin: 75%; 5-FU: 69%). Treatment delays occurred in 60% of Folfox-treated patients and 43% of Xelox-treated patients becauseof toxicities. Mean treatment duration was 24.9 (3.0-65.0) and 26.1 (4.0-60.1) weeks respectively. Conclusions: The higher dose reduction of Xelox compared to Folfox appeared to enable treatment completion with less toxicities. The impact on survival and cost of treatments will be presented.
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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".