MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of delay in adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer.

2014· article· en· W2599757594 on OpenAlexaff
Renata D’Alpino Peixoto, Aalok Kumar, Caroline Speers, Daniel J. Renouf, Hagen F. Kennecke, Howard J. Lim, Winson Y. Cheung, Barbara Melosky, Sharlene Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxaliplatinCapecitabineInternal medicineColorectal cancerStage (stratigraphy)ChemotherapyOncologyProportional hazards modelCancerGastroenterologyPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3561 Background: Less than 8 weeks (w) has been recommended as the optimal time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) based upon two meta-analyses suggesting worse OS with delayed AC. However, neither included studies with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and the impact of its delay remains uncertain. Methods: Records of pts who initiated AC with either 5-FU or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for stage III colon cancer between 2006 and 2011 at the BC Cancer Agency were reviewed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the impact of timing of AC on RFS. Pts were categorized into initiation of AC within 8 w (G1) and after 8 w (G2) Results: 635 pts (52% male) with a median age of 62 yrs (range 26–80) were included. Median lymph nodes examined and involved were 15 and 3, respectively. Median time from surgery to initiation of AC was 8.3 w (SD 18.58). At a median follow-up of 57.9 months, 176 pts (27.7%) have recurred and 118 (18.6%) have died. 5y-RFS was 70.9% (95% CI 65.2-76.5) for G1 and 72.1% (95%CI 67.2-77) for G2. On multivariate analysis, T stage, N stage, obstruction and perforation were identified as poor prognostic factors for RFS. Timing for AC did not have prognostic significance (HR 1.03, p = 0.83). Conclusions: In our population-based study, time to oxaliplatin-based AC following stage III colon resection did not impact on RFS. Contrary to most of the existing data which is primarily based on 5FU-based AC, delay of oxaliplatin-based therapy beyond 8 w is not associated with inferior outcomes. Prognostic factors for RFS – univariate and multivariate analysis. Variables Univariate HR p value Multivariate HR p value Age <65 ≥65 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.55 1.11 1.09 Male Female 1.0 0.19 1.0 0.22 1.21 1.20 Grade 1/2 3 1.0 0.04 1.0 0.72 1.44 1.06 LVI no yes 1.0 < 0.001 1.0 0.05 1.89 3.12 PNI no yes 1.0 0.005 1.0 0.84 1.69 1.04 T 1/2 T3 T4 1.0 < 0.001 1.0 0.003 2.69 2.16 5.42 3.27 N1 N2 1.0 < 0.001 1.0 <0.001 2.11 1.80 Examined LN ≤12 >12 1.0 0.85 1.0 0.05 0.97 0.72 Obstruction no yes 1.0 < 0.001 1.0 0.007 2.18 1.73 Perforation no yes 1.0 < 0.001 1.0 0.002 3.40 2.45 Location right left 1.0 0.02 1.0 0.07 1.40 1.32 Time surgery-chemo ≤ 8 w > 8 w 1.0 0.60 1.0 0.83 1.08 1.03

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)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments→French-language works237,207→