MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase II study of pre- and post-operative gemcitabine and erlotinib plus pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): ACOSOG Z5041 trial (Alliance).

2018· article· en· W2891010170 on OpenAlexaff
Alice C. Wei, Fang‐Shu Ou, Qian Shi, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, Robert A. Wolff, Hedy L. Kindler, Douglas B. Evans, Vikram Deshpande, Joseph Misdraji, Eric P. Tamm, Dushyant V. Sahani, Malcolm J. Moore, Elliot Newman, Nipun B. Merchant, Jordan Berlin, Laura W. Goff, Peter W. T. Pisters, Mitchell C. Posner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineClinical endpointErlotinibSurgeryPerioperativePhases of clinical researchUrologyInternal medicineOncologyCancerChemotherapyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4112 Background: For resectable PDAC (without vascular involvement) postoperative adjuvant therapy remains the standard, though there is considerable interest in a neoadjuvant approach. This study evaluates overall survival (OS) with perioperative gemcitabine + erlotinib (G+E) combined with PD for resectable PDAC. Methods: ACOSOG Z5041 was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm phase II trial of pre- and postoperative G+E for resectable PDAC. Key eligibility requirements were localized biopsy-confirmed PDAC in the pancreatic head, resectable without evidence of tumor involvement of major mesenteric vessels. Patients (pts) received standard G+E (100 mg days 1-43) prior to and following surgery. The primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included toxicity profile, response rate, resection rate and time to progression. The study was closed early due to slow accrual; no formal hypothesis testing was performed. Results: 116 meeting eligibility requirements were enrolled; 114 who initiated treatment were evaluable. By central radiologic review, 97 pts met protocol resectability criteria, 17 pts were beyond. Median age was 66 years (39-88); 55 females (48%). Grade 3+ toxicity was reported in 68 (60%) and 90 (79%) pts during the neoadjuvant phase and overall. 22 (19%) pts did not proceed to surgery. 92 (81%) pts had surgery; 83 (73%) were resected with PD, 9 (8%) were unresectable. R0 and R1 margins were 67 (81%) and 15 (18%) of resected pts, respectively. 54 received postoperative G+E (65% resected, 47% evaluable). 2-year OS for evaluable pts was 40% (95%CI 31-49%) with median OS 21.3 (95%CI 17-26) months. 2-year OS for resected pts was 52% (95%CI 37-59%) with median OS 25.4 (95%CI 22-30) months. Conclusions: For resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant therapy provides 2-year OS similar to pts able to receive standard adjuvant therapy. Importantly, futile PD was avoided in 27% pts. Further evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable PDAC is warranted as more active chemotherapy regimens emerge. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Clinical trial information: NCT00733746.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→