Analysis of serum vitamin D levels and prognosis in stage III colon carcinoma patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX+/- cetuximab chemotherapy: NCCTG N0147 (Alliance).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3516 Background: Epidemiological data suggest a protective effect of vitamin D on CC risk. However, association of serum vitamin D level with clinical outcome in pts with surgically resected CC remains unknown. We analyzed total circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D)] with clinical outcome in pts with resected stage III CC treated with FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in a phase III trial. Methods: Association of pre-treatment level of plasma 25(OH)D with disease-free survival (DFS) and time-to-recurrence (TTR) was analyzed with 25(OH)D as a continuous variable by a relative risk model with splines and as a binary variable (vitamin D deficient [<30 ng/mL]) using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Overall, 49% (291/600) of pts were vitamin D deficient. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was significantly higher in women vs men (52% vs. 48%, p=0.030) and in blacks vs whites (74% vs. 45%, p=0.0003). The continuous 25(OH)D level and pt sex were associated by the interaction test (pinteraction=0.044). There were no statistically significant associations with DFS/TTR for either continuous 25(OH)D level (DFS, p=0.22; TTR, p=0.26) nor for vitamin D deficiency (DFS, adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]=1.01, 95% CI, 0.74-1.38; padj=0.94; TTR, HRadj=1.00; CI, 0.72-1.38; padj=0.99. A comparison of the highest vs lowest tertile showed a significant association between the highest 25(OH)D level and better outcomes in men (DFS, HRadj.=0.18, CI, 0.04-0.76, padj=0.020; TTR, HRadj.=0.12, CI, 0.02-0.64, padj=0.014), but not in women (DFS, pinteraction=0.039; TTR, pinteraction=0.033). Conclusions: Nearly one-half of pts in the clinical trial cohort were vitamin D deficient with lowest 25(OH)D levels found in women and blacks. While vitamin D deficiency was not associated with adverse outcome, high levels of vitamin D in men, but not women, were associated with longer survival. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180863, U10CA180888, U10CA077202, CCSRI 021039. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274.
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) | 0.000 | 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".