Utilization of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of stage IIB and stage III colon cancer: A multi-centre, retrospective, chart review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose First, to assess drug utilization rates of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) versus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimens in the treatment of stage IIB and stage III colon cancer. Second, to assess patient characteristics used to select CAPOX versus FOLFOX therapy, dose-limiting toxicities, dose intensities and treatment completion rates. Methods Patients with resected stage IIB or stage III colon cancer from five British Columbia Cancer Agency centres treated with CAPOX or mFOLFOX6 were selected for the analysis. Protocol utilization rates, patient characteristics and toxicities of the two regimens were collected and compared by descriptive statistics. Results A total of 306 patients were included over study period. mFOLFOX6 is the most commonly used regimen with 69% utilization rate. CAPOX patients were younger (57 years old vs. 62 years old, p < 0.01), but no other significant differences were found. CAPOX was associated with more dose-limiting toxicities compared to mFOLFOX6 (95% vs. 82%, p < 0.01). Fewer patients completed the intended 24-week course of CAPOX compared to mFOLFOX6 (67% vs. 82%, p < 0.01). Conclusion FOLFOX is the most commonly utilized adjuvant treatment option for stage IIB and stage III colon cancer in British Columbia, and is associated with better tolerability and higher treatment completion rates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".