Unicancer GI PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 trial: A multicenter international randomized phase III trial of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine (gem) in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA4001 Background: FOLFIRINOX is more effective than gem as first-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer for patients (pts) with good performance status. This trial assessed the benefit of mFOLFIRINOX in the adjuvant setting. Methods: PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 is a phase III multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Pts aged 18-79 years with histologically proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 21-84 days after R0 or R1 resection, WHO PS ≤1, adequate hematologic and renal function, and no cardiac ischemia, were eligible. Randomization was stratified by center, pN, R margin status, and post-operative CA 19-9 level (≤ 90 U/mL vs 91-180). Arm A pts received 28-day cycles of gem on days 1, 8, and 15 for 6 cycles. Arm B pts received mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², irinotecan 150 mg/m² D1, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m² over 46 h) every 14 days for 12 cycles. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and adverse events (AE). 490 pts were required to observe 342 events to show a gain in 3-year DFS from 17% to 27% (HR = 0.74) with a two-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were estimated by a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. We observed 91.5% of the events required. The IDMC approved early ITT analysis before March 15, 2018. Surgical procedures, pathology and postoperative CT scans reports were centrally reviewed. Results: From Apr 2012 to Oct 2016, 493 pts were enrolled in 77 centers: Arm A/B: 246/247. With a median follow up of 30.5 months [m] (95% CI, 29.5-33.7), median DFS was 12.8 (95% CI, 11.7-15.2) in Arm A vs 21.6 m (95% CI, 17.5-26.7) in Arm B, HR = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47-0.74). The median OS (Arm A/B) was 34.8 (95% CI, 28.6-43.8) vs 54.4 m (95% CI, 41.5- --), HR = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.49-0.89). The median MFS (Arm A/B) was 17.7 (95% CI, 14.2-21.7) vs 30.4 m (95% CI, 21.6- --), HR = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76). Grade 3-4 AE (Arm A/B) were reported in 51.1% vs 75.5%, including 12% grade 4 in each arm, with a toxic death in Arm A. Conclusion: Adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX is safe and significantly improves DFS, MFS and OS compared to gem. Clinical trial information: NCT01526135.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".