MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Final results of the international randomized PORTEC-3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) versus RT alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer.

2017· article· en· W2735060120 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie M. de Boer, Melanie Powell, Linda Mileshkin, Dionyssios Katsaros, Paul Bessette, Christine Haie-Méder, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Jonathan A. Ledermann, Pearly Khaw, Alessandro Colombo, Anthony Fyles, Marie‐Hélène Baron, Henry C Kitchener, Hans W. Nijman, Roy F.P.M. Kruitwagen, Ina M. Jürgenliemk‐Schulz, Remi A. Nout, Vincent T.H.B.M. Smit, Hein Putter, Carien L. Creutzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerCarboplatinRadiation therapyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)Survival analysisSurgeryGastroenterologyUrologyCancerCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5502 Background: Women with high-risk endometrial cancer (HREC) are at increased risk of distant metastasis and endometrial cancer-related death. The randomized PORTEC-3 intergroup trial was initiated to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiotherapy (CTRT) versus pelvic radiotherapy (RT) alone for women with HREC. Methods: Women with HREC (FIGO stage I grade 3 with deep myometrial invasion and/or LVSI; stage II or III; or serous/clear cell histology) were randomly allocated (1:1) to RT (48.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions) or CTRT (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m² in week 1 and 4 of RT, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m² at 3-week intervals) with stratification for participating center, lymphadenectomy, stage, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS). The Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression analysis were used for final analysis according to intention-to-treat. PORTEC-3 is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14387080) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411138). Results: 686 women were enrolled between 2006 and 2013. 26 women were excluded; 13 withdrew consent early and 13 were ineligible, which left 660 patients in the analysis, with a median follow up time of 60.2 months (IQR 47.1–72.9): 330 CTRT and 330 RT. Three- and five-year OS for CTRT vs. RT was 84.4% versus 83.9%, and 81.8% versus 76.7%; overall HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.57-1.12, p=0.183]. Three-year FFS was 79.7% (CTRT) versus 71.8% (RT), and at 5 years 75.5% versus 68.9%, overall HR for FFS 0.77 [0.58-1.03, p=0.078]. Patients with stage III EC had lower 5-year FFS and OS compared to stage I-II (FFS 63.9% vs 78.9%, p<0.001, and OS 74.3% vs 83.1%, p=0.003). They also had greatest benefit of CTRT: 5-year FFS for stage III was 69.3% for CTRT vs 58.0% for RT [95% CI 0.45-0.97, p=0.032], and 5-year OS for stage III was 78.7 % vs 69.8% (p=0.114). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after pelvic radiotherapy for treatment of HREC did not significantly improve 5-year FFS and OS, compared with RT alone. For women with stage III EC FFS was however significantly improved with CTRT by 11% at 5 years. Follow-up will continue to evaluate long-term outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT00411138.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207