MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Significance of baseline quality of life scores in predicting clinical outcomes in an international phase III trial of advanced pancreatic cancer: NCIC CTG PA.3.

2013· article· en· W2603488760 on OpenAlexaff
Michael M. Vickers, Dongsheng Tu, Chee Khoon Lee, Paul Wheatley‐Price, Wendy R. Parulekar, Michael Brundage, Malcolm J. Moore, Heather‐Jane Au, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Derek J. Jonker, Jolie Ringash, David Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGemcitabineQuality of life (healthcare)PlaceboPancreatic cancerProportional hazards modelAdverse effectPerformance statusErlotinibCancerStatistical significanceGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4053 Background: There is insufficient information regarding the prognostic significance of baseline Quality of life (QoL) scores on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: QoL was assessed prospectively using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and AEs were graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0 as part of the PA.3 trial of gemcitabine + erlotinib (G+E) vs. gemcitabine + placebo (G+P). Relevant clinical variables, ECOG performance status (PS), and QoL scores at baseline were analyzed by Cox stepwise regression to determine predictors of OS and AEs. QoL scores were transformed by square root. Results: 222 of 285 patients (pts) (78%) treated with G+E and 220 of 284 pts (77%) treated with G+P completed baseline QoL assessments. In a multivariate Cox analysis (MVA) combining all pts, better QoL physical function (PF) score independently and incrementally predicted longer OS (HR 0.91; CI: 0.83-1.00), as did non-white race (HR 0.62; CI: 0.42-0.91), PS 0-1 (vs. PS 2 - HR 0.64; CI: 0.49-0.84), locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) (vs. metastatic - HR 0.54; CI: 0.42-0.69) and G+E (vs. G+P - HR 0.79; CI: 0.64-0.98). More financial difficulty (HR 0.92; CI: 0.87-0.98) and PS 0-1 (HR: 0.36; CI: 0.17-0.77) predicted a lower risk of grade 3 or higher AEs. In a MVA of pts treated with G+E, pain intensity <20 (vs. ≥ 20 - HR 0.68; CI:0.52-0.88) and LAPC (HR 0.67; CI: 0.48-0.91) were associated with longer OS, while better QoL cognitive (HR 0.71; CI: 0.50-1.00), worse constipation (HR 0.89; CI: 0.81-0.98) and worse financial scores (HR 0.86; CI: 0.78-0.94), better dyspnea score (HR 0.82; CI: 0.71-0.93) and PS 0-1 (HR 0.21; CI: 0.05-0.78) predicted for lower risk of AEs. In a MVA of pts treated with G+P, better global QoL score (HR 0.91; CI:0.85-0.98) and LAPC (HR 0.57; CI: 0.40-0.82) were predictors of longer OS while no variables predicted grade 3 or higher AEs. Conclusions: In addition to clinical variables (including physician assessed PS), patient reported QoL scores added incremental predictive information regarding survival and adverse events for advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with systemic chemotherapy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→