Prognostic factors associated with long term survival in chemotherapy-treated advanced pancreatic cancer: A Canadian multicenter analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
416 Background: The outcomes of patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) are poor. With the use of currently available multi-agent regimens, median overall survival (mOS) remains < 12 months. Select pts, however, experience a protracted survival. Little is known about the clinical, pathologic and treatment characteristics associated with long term survival (LTS) in APC. Methods: Pooled individual level data from six Canadian cancer centers of pts diagnosed with APC from 2012 to 2016 who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy (CT) were analyzed. Clinical, pathologic and treatment characteristics, as well as survival, were compared between pts who lived < and ≥ 18 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of survival. Results: Of 455 pts, 96% had metastatic disease and 88 (19%) survived ≥ 18 months. Compared to pts who survived < 18 months, those with LTS had lower WBC (p = 0.0025), CA 19-9 (p < 0.001), ALP (p < 0.001) and LDH (p = 0.007) at baseline. Pts with LTS also had higher albumin (p < 0.001) and BMI (p = 0.0268). In addition, they had better ECOG (p < 0.001) and were more likely to have tumors in the head of the pancreas (p = 0.0204). LTS pts were more likely to have a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to 1L CT (p < 0.001). The mOS seen with LTS was 29.2 months, compared to 4.3 months (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, independent predictors of LTS included: primary tumor in the head of the pancreas (OR 3.42 95% CI 1.2-9.76); experiencing a CR or PR to 1L CT (OR 9.19 95% CI 3.78-22.32); and receipt of 2L doublet CT (OR 2.72 95% CI 1.05 to 7.08). Conversely, factors associated with lower likelihood of LTS included: ECOG ≥ 2 (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.11-0.95); and elevated CA 19-9 (OR 0.43 95% CI 0.21-0.9). Conclusions: A select proportion of pts with APC experience LTS and have clinical features which differentiate them from those without LTS. The use of performance status, primary tumor location, pre-treatment CA 19-9, 2L CT type and radiologic response may help identify LTS and inform discussions regarding treatment and prognosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".