MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real world eligibility of treatment-refractory stage IV colorectal cancer patients for palliative intent regorafenib monotherapy.

2017· article· en· W2889986295 on OpenAlexaff
Arkhjamil Angeles, Wayne Hung, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegorafenibInternal medicinePanitumumabColorectal cancerCetuximabRefractory (planetary science)OncologyPerformance statusCancerStage (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e15007 Background: The CORRECT trial demonstrated overall survival benefits of regorafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who were refractory to prior chemotherapy and biological therapy. However, stringent criteria used to determine treatment eligibility in the trial setting may limit its external validity in the real world. We aimed to examine treatment attrition rates and eligibility of regorafenib in routine clinical practice. Methods: All patients diagnosed with metastatic CRC between 2009 and 2014 who received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were identified. During the study timeframe, cetuximab (cmab) and panitumumab (pmab) were only used in the chemo-refractory setting. Data on clinical factors, pathological variables and outcomes were ascertained and analyzed. Eligibility was defined based on criteria outlined in the CORRECT trial. Results: A total of 391 patients were included among whom only 39% were considered eligible for regorafenib. Median age was 61 (range 22-84) years. 247 (63%) were men, 305 (78%) were Caucasian, and 237 (60%) had a colonic primary. The disease burden at diagnosis was high: 267 (81%) had lymph node involvement, and 225 (59%) had distant metastases. In patients previously treated with cmab, main reasons for regorafenib ineligiblity were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) > 1 (26.9%), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) > 2 x upper limit of normal (ULN) (6.5%), and arterio-venous thrombotic or embolic events in the preceding 6 months (6.5%). In the group treated with pmab previously, main reasons for ineligibility were ECOG PS > 1 (46.6%), total bilirubin > 1.5 x ULN (14.1%), and thrombotic or embolic events in the past 6 months (5.7%). Additional analyses showed that regorafenib-eligible patients had increased median overall survival compared to ineligible patients (44.0 vs 37.1 months, P= 0.028). Conclusions: The strict trial eligibility criteria disqualified the majority of real world patients with metastatic CRC for regorfenib. As ineligibility predicts poorer outcomes, trials aimed at serving protocol-ineligible patients are warranted.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207