MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of oxaliplatin-based (Ox) chemotherapy (CT) on R0 resection of colonic liver metastases (CLM).

2018· article· en· W2890978982 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas A. Bosma, Maclean Thiesen, Winson Y. Cheung, Daniel J. Renouf, Caroline Speers, Derek Tilley, Elijah Dixon, Chad G. Ball, Patricia A. Tang, Richard M. Lee‐Ying

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapecitabineOxaliplatinBevacizumabIrinotecanColorectal cancerProportional hazards modelPerioperativeRadiologyInternal medicineChemotherapyOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3538 Background: In resected CLM, randomized studies of Ox CT have not demonstrated improvements in overall survival (OS) and Ox CT has not been compared to non-Ox CT. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Ox CT regimens on OS in patients that have undergone resection of CLM in a real world setting. Methods: Patients who underwent resection of CLM in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, Canada were identified from 1996-2016. Perioperative (pre and/or post) CT regimens were reviewed and categorized as Ox CT, non-Ox CT or no CT. OS was measured from the time of metastatic diagnosis to death or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. CT regimens were compared using the log-rank test and a Cox regression model, adjusting for possible confounders including age, gender, primary tumor sidedness and the presence of synchronous metastatic disease. Results: 516 patients were identified who underwent R0 resection of CLM for mCRC, including 205 that received Ox CT, 129 non-Ox CT and 182 with no CT. Of these patients, 24% and 56% received pre-operative and post-operative CT, respectively. 70% of these patients received a fluoropyrimidine (5-FU or capecitabine), 40% oxaliplatin, 13% irinotecan, 7% received bevacizumab and 1% panitumumab. Median age of these patients was 64, with 60% male and 57% demonstrating synchronous metastatic disease and 38% right-sided primary. The median OS for patients receiving Ox CT was 98 months, for non-Ox CT 60 months and no CT 56 months, p = 0.01. After adjusting for potential confounders with a Cox-proportional hazard model, patients who received Ox CT had a lower risk of death HR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.87, p < 0.01), while the non-OX CT group did not, HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.62-1.13, p = 0.25) compared to no CT. Conclusions: Perioperative Ox CT appears to improve OS in conjunction with R0 resection of CLM in this multicenter population based study. This observation remained significant even after controlling for potential confounders. Ox CT should be considered in patients that undergo R0 resection of CLM, in favor of non-Ox CT. The addition of biologic agents to CT remains limited. Further studies should evaluate the optimal timing and duration of perioperative CT.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→