Experience with perioperative chemotherapy (ECC or ECF) for gastroesophageal cancer in British Columbia: A multicenter experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15153 Background: In 2006, the MAGIC trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for perioperative ECF among patients with resectable gastro-esophageal cancer when compared to surgery alone. Since 2008, perioperative chemotherapy has become the standard of care for resectable gastro-esophageal cancer in our institution. We report the results of our experience with this protocol. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency is a multi-centre institution treating the majority of oncology patients for the province. A total of 83 consecutive patients with localized gastric, gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) or lower esophageal cancer who initiated ECC/ECF perioperative chemotherapy from March 2008 to June 2011 were identified using the pharmacy database. Patient’s characteristics were abstracted to an anonymous database and analyzed. Results: In our cohort, 83 patients (66 males and 17 females) with a median age of 62 years (range 37 – 79) began preoperative chemotherapy, of whom 73 (87.9%) completed 3 cycles. The response rate was 49.3%. Among the 83 patients, 78 (93.9%) underwent surgery (2 patients died of chemotherapy toxicities, 1 refused surgery and 2 developed disease progression before surgery), of whom 11 (14.1%) could not have their tumors resected (1 unresectable, 1 with liver metastasis and 9 with peritoneal carcinomatosis). Only one patient died of surgical complications. Six patients (7.69%) achieved pathologic complete response (ypCR) and all of them are alive and recurrence-free. Forty-eight patients (57.8%) subsequently began postoperative chemotherapy, of whom 37 (44.5%) completed 3 cycles. Thirty-nine patients have died as of December 4th, 2012. The observed median survival was 38 months. Conclusions: In our multi-center experience, the results reported in the MAGIC trial were reproduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".