MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

2019· article· en· W2911639050 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shaina D'Lee Templeton, Mike Moser, Haji Chalchal, John M. Shaw, Yigang Luo, Adnan Zaidi, Shahid Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOLFIRINOXMedicineGemcitabineOxaliplatinPancreatic cancerIrinotecanInternal medicineOncologyPopulationSurgeryCancerColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

299 Background: Pancreatic cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death. Less than 20% of patients have resectable disease at diagnosis. Patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) are at high risk of incomplete resection with upfront surgery. Currently there is no standard induction chemotherapy regimen exists for BRPC. Both FOLFIRINOX (5-FU, irinotecan, oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have shown better efficacy than gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. The current study aims to assess outcomes of real-world patients with BRCP who received induction FOLFIRINOX or GnP. Methods: In this population-based multicenter retrospective cohort study patients with biopsy proven BRPC as defined by the pancreatic surgical team diagnosed from 2011-2017, in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, who received FOLFIRINOX or GnP were assessed. Kaplan Meier methods and log rank tests were performed for survival analyses. Results: Of 161 patients with pancreatic cancer who received FOLFIRINOX or GnP during the study period, 20 eligible patients with BRPC, with median age of 65 yrs (54-79) and M:F 14:6, were identified. 85% had pancreatic head tumours with a median CA19-9 of 470 u/mL. Of eligible patients, 10 each received FOLFIRINOX or GnP. No significant differences were found between the two groups, except more patients in FOLFIRINOX group had a WHO performance status of 0 (50% vs. 10%, p = 0.057) and had a higher body mass index (27.0 vs. 23.0, p = 0.027). Eleven patients showed partial response (5–FOLFIRINOX and 6–GnP), three progressed during treatment. Five patients (4–FOLFIRINOX, 1–GnP, p = NS) underwent curative surgery. Five patients (1–FOLFIRINOX, 4–Gnp) had radiation and four underwent Nanoknife procedure (3–FOLFIRINOX, 1–GnP). The median progression free survival was 17 months in FOLFIRINOX (95% CI: 5.3-28.6) versus nine months (3.0-15) in GnP group (p = 0.26). The median overall survival was 32 months in FOLFIRINOX (not reach) versus 16 months (9.3-22.7) in GnP group (p = 0.15). Conclusions: The current study suggests that patients with BRPC who received FOLFIRINOX tends to have better outcomes. Future study are warranted to establish a preferred systemic therapy for BRPC.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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