MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival impact of CAPOX versus FOLFOX in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

2017· article· en· W2603035054 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Loree, Aaron Sha, Maryam Soleimani, Maria Yi Ho, Hagen F. Kennecke, Winson Y. Cheung, Karen Mulder, Shirin Abadi, Jennifer L. Spratlin, Sharlene Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOLFOXMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelGastroenterologyAdjuvantLog-rank testOncologyOxaliplatinAdjuvant therapyCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

710 Background: CAPOX and FOLFOX are used interchangeably in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer despite the lack of comparative phase III trials.We aimed to compare toxicities, relative dose intensity (RDI), disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of these regimens in the real world. Methods: We identified consecutively treated patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer at two centers who received either CAPOX or mFOLFOX6 when either option was accessible to pts. RDI was defined as total dose received divided by the total intended dose if all cycles had been delivered. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were toxicities that resulted in a dose reduction of an agent. Survival was compared with the log-rank test and Cox models that adjusted for age, gender, ECOG, T-stage, and N-stage. Results: Of 394 pts, 61.7% received FOLFOX. Age, gender, ECOG, T-stage, N-stage, and time between surgery and start of therapy did not differ between groups. However, RDI and toxicity profiles differed between treatment groups (see Table). With a median follow up of 45 months, there was no difference in OS (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.45-1.22; P= 0.24); however, CAPOX was associated with a more favorable DFS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.93; P= 0.022). In multivariate analysis, treatment with CAPOX showed trends towards improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34-1.07; P= 0.086). A significant association with improved DFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87; P= 0.012) persisted. Exploratory analysis comparing outcomes stratified by the presence of any DLT, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neuropathy failed to show an association with either OS or DFS. (See table.) Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the use of adjuvant CAPOX is associated with an improved DFS despite greater toxicity and lower RDI. Patient selection, the higher starting dose of oxaliplatin in CAPOX, or the metronomic nature of capecitabine may be contributing to improved efficacy of CAPOX. [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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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