MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment patterns and progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic colorectal (mCRC) patients (pts) on an oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OX-t): A Canadian retrospective chart review.

2014· article· en· W2907871591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Petr Kavan, Aline Mamo, Young Soo Rho, Gerald Batist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabOxaliplatinFOLFIRIFOLFOXInternal medicineProgression-free survivalColorectal cancerIrinotecanOncologyRetrospective cohort studyChemotherapyCapecitabineSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14627 Background: Pts with mCRC receiving a first-line (1L) OX-t exhibit a PFS that extends beyond their treatment duration. However, the perception is that neurotoxicity limits OX-t treatment duration and hence the benefit that could ensue. Methods: To quantify these aspects (treatment duration and PFS), a chart review was conducted to investigate real-world PFS observed in these pts. In this retrospective cohort study, we collected first- and second-line (2L) therapy data from 89 unselected mCRC pts who received an OX-t between January 2010 and May 2013. Treatment patterns were captured. As a proxy for clinical PFS, PFS was defined as time from 1L to 2L start, death, lost to follow-up or date of last visit. The time between 1L OX start to 2L FOLFIRI initiation was also recorded, understanding progression would occur prior to 2L FOLFIRI initiation. Results: 60% (54) of pts received mFOLFOX6 (mean: 10 cycles, RDI 92%, average treatment duration of 5.6 months (26 weeks)), 69% (37/54) received bevacizumab (mean: 10 cycles). 40% (35) of pts received XELOX (mean: 7 cycles, RDI 84%, average duration of 5.5 months (25 weeks)), 78% (28/35) with bevacizumab (mean: 5 cycles). Among mFOLFOX6 pts, 18 pts (33%) went on to 2L FOLFIRI, 6 (11%) went on to another 2L therapy. As of January 2014, 19 pts (35%) were still alive and not on 2L, 5 died before 2L (9%) and 6 (11%) were lost to follow-up. Among XELOX pts, the numbers were 8 (23%), 4 (11%), 16 (46%), 6 (17%) and 1 (3%) respectively. Among pts still alive who received mFOLFOX6 and XELOX, 79% (15/19) and 88% (14/16) had a resection of their primary and/or metastatic tumor. Median PFS were 16.0 months (mean 18.2) and 24.0 months (mean 24.0) in mFOLFOX6 and XELOX treated patients respectively. For pts who received 2L FOLFIRI, median interval from 1L start to 2L start was 7.3 months (mean 8.9) in the mFOLFOX6 group and 11.3 months (mean 12.3) in the XELOX group. Treatment durations were similar to the overall group. Conclusions: These results help quantify the treatment benefits that can be expected from an OX-t beyond the specific treatment duration and are aligned with an 8 months median PFS reported by Tournigand 2004.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.464
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207