Gemcitabine Re-challenge in Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Therapeutic Option for Selected Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Treatment options for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas are limited. Re-challenge with a previously successful gemcitabine-based regimen is common. There are no published data to support this practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective search to identify patients re-challenged with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (GBC) from 2003 to 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients re-challenged with gemcitabine were identified. The response rate for initial GBC was 55% (n=15) and for re-challenge GBC 26% (n=6). The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months (95%CI=7.2-11.9) for initial GBC and 5.3 months (95%CI=2.0-7.5) for re-challenge GBC. Overall survival following gemcitabine re-challenge was 12.2 months (95%CI=7.0-18.2). Twelve out of 26 evaluable patients (46%) treated with re-challenge GBC experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (CTCAE 4.03) with 31% (n=8) of patients requiring dose reduction. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, gemcitabine re-challenge can be considered in advanced sarcomas, however, this approach is associated with toxicity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it