MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase II trial of capecitabine +/- erlotinib in advanced colorectal cancer, with retrospective KRAS and primary tumor site analysis.

2017· article· en· W2599273184 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Breadner, Stephen Welch, Denis Soulières, Michael Sanatani, Paul Klimo, Mary J. MacKenzie, Frances Whiston, Larry Stitt, Anne C. O’Connell, Mark Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCancer Care OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKRASCapecitabineInternal medicineErlotinibClinical endpointColorectal cancerOncologyGastroenterologyCancerPhases of clinical researchChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

781 Background: Palliative capecitabine (X) monotherapy for advanced colorectal colorectal cancer (aCRC) is generally well tolerated by elderly or frail pts. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies improve efficacy when added to combination chemotherapy for mCRC. Erlotinib (E), an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) may add benefit when added to X. We conducted a randomized phase II trial to investigate the novel “all-oral” combination of X and E in aCRC. Methods: Pts with untreated aCRC who were either deemed unfit for, or chose against, combination chemotherapy were randomized to X (1000 mg/m2 PO BID x 14 days) alone or in combination with E (150 mg PO OD) on a 3-week schedule. Primary endpoint was time to disease progression (TTP); secondary endpoints included: objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Tumours were designated as left-sided if there were distal to the transverse colon. KRAS status was retrospectively analyzed for 72 of 82 pts. Results: From 2004 to 2008, 82 pts were randomized to X alone (40 pts) or XE (42 pts). TTP was not different between X and XE (7.9 m vs. 9.2 m; p = 0.890), however, KRAS subgroup analysis revealed pts with KRAS mutations did significantly worse when treated with XE compared to X alone (1.9m vs 7.4m; HR = 2.63; P = 0.038). Pts with KRAS wild-type (WT) treated with XE had an improved TTP compared to those treated with X (11.7m vs. 8.4m, HR = 0.73; Wilcoxon P = 0.061). KRAS-WT pts treated with XE with left-sided disease had an improved OS compared to pts with right-sided disease (16m vs. 12.1m, not significant). KRAS-WT pts with left-sided primaries treated with XE had a non-significant improvement in TTP compared to pts treated with X alone (11.7m vs 8.4m). XE was well tolerated but had significantly higher rates of diarrhea and acneform skin rash. Conclusions: The addition of E to X is generally well tolerated but associated with additional toxicities. E may benefit pts with KRAS-wild-type CRC, specifically those with left-sided primary tumours, and likely harms those with KRAS-mutated CRC. Further study of oral EGFR-TKIs in left-sided KRAS-wild-type aCRC is warranted.

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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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