Effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on FOLFOX and XELOX regimens in colorectal cancer (CRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
621 Title: Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) on FOLFOX and XELOX Regimens in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Background: First-line adjuvant chemotherapy options for stage II-III CRC include XELOX (capecitabine (cape), oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, 5FU). Cape is an oral 5FU prodrug, and recent studies suggested that PPIs may detrimentally affect cape efficacy. Conversely, some literature posits that PPIs may negatively impact CRC itself. Our primary objective was to compare 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates between XELOX-treated PPI-users and non-PPI users, and FOLFOX-treated PPI users and non-PPI users. Our main secondary objective was to compare overall survival (OS). Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 389 stage II-III CRC patients (pts) who received adjuvant XELOX or FOLFOX from a tertiary cancer center in Alberta, Canada between 2004-2013. Information regarding PPI use, cancer treatment, and pt outcomes were gathered and analyzed from pharmacy databases. Results: 23.4% of XELOX-treated pts and 28.0% of FOLFOX -treated pts used PPIs concurrently with treatment. 3-year RFS was significantly lower in XELOX-treated PPI pts than non-PPI pts (69.5 vs. 82.6%, P=0.029). Unadjusted analysis showed that XELOX-treated PPI pts were twice as likely to experience cancer recurrence or death as XELOX-treated non-PPI pts (HR 2.03, P=0.033). FOLFOX-treated PPI pts had a non-significant increase in three-year RFS versus non-PPI pts (82.9 vs. 61.7%, P=0.066), and no significant difference in recurrence or death (HR 0.51, P=0.071). No significant differences were seen in OS. Conclusions: Our results suggest that PPIs negatively impacted RFS in early-stage XELOX-treated CRC pts, and yielded no significant effect amongst FOLFOX-treated patients. Further studies are required to corroborate our findings. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".