Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with dose reduced capecitabine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
237 Background: The goal of palliative chemotherapy is to prolong survival and decrease the symptomatic disease burden while minimizing treatment toxicities to preserve or improve quality of life. We recently reported a trial of dose reduced capecitabine in elderly or frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer, demonstrating that dose reduced capecitabine was a safe and efficacious treatment option. We herein report the health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes for the trial. Methods: A single arm multi-centered phase I/II trial of dose reduced capecitabine assessed capecitabine in 221 patients in at least one of the following subgroups: Age > 65, ECOG-PS ≥1, elevated LDH, and prior pelvic RT. Capecitabine was given at 2000 mg/m2 days 1-14 q21 days; or 1500 mg/m2 for patients with prior pelvic RT, as determined in the phase I portion of the study. Phase II participant (182 pts) were asked to complete FACT-G questionnaires at enrollment, after each cycle of capecitabine and once after cessation of the study drug, if possible. Results: 157 pts completed a baseline questionnaire (86%), and 137 pts (75%) completed a baseline and at least one subsequent questionnaire. The mean baseline score was 81.6, out of a possible 108. The mean score peaked at 92 after cycle 10. The mean change from baseline was always positive, with the maximum change (4.0), occurring after cycle 12. The number of patients who achieved the minimal important difference, a meaningful improvement in HRQoL, ranged from 30% to 45% during treatment cylces. The differences in HRQoL between capecitabine doses were minimal and did not reach significance. Patients who did not achieve disease control also reported an improvement in mean score from baseline (+3.9) after cycle 2. Changes in subscale mean scores for physical and social/family wellbeing were minimal (-1.2 to +0.5) while emotion and function subscale mean scores never decreased with the peak subscale change from baseline being +3.5. Conclusions: HRQoL improved on capecitabine therapy at 2000 or 1500 mg/m2 daily, further supporting its use in elderly and less fit patients with advanced colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".