Cross-trial comparison of taxane versus non-taxane combination chemotherapy regimens for advanced penile cancer (APC): A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
511 Background: Penile cancer is rare and there are scant data on the optimal chemotherapy regimen. The majority of trials are single arm, non-randomized studies. Here we report on a systematic review aiming to compare taxane combination chemotherapy regimens with non-taxane regimens for APC. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched using the following terms: penile cancer, penis, antineoplastic combined chemotherapy, taxane, docetaxel, paclitaxel, platinum, cisplatin, carboplatin. Studies were identified using preplanned eligibility criteria by 2 investigators (EA-E and JR). Data were extracted independently by EA-E and JR. Studies were weighted by study sample size and those comparing taxane-based chemotherapy were compared to non-taxane therapy using the Mann Whitney test. Results: The search identified 1929 publications and 40 were selected for further assessment. Of these, 8 met eligibility criteria (7 prospective and 1 retrospective). Three studies tested taxane combinations (docetaxel, cisplatin and 5FU [DCF] and paclitaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin [TIP]). A total of 148 men with APC were treated with non-taxane regimens and 98 men received a taxane combination. Patient characteristics (age, ECOG status, stage, number of cycles) were comparable between the two groups. Partial response and overall response rates were significantly higher in the taxane versus the non-taxane group (35.7% vs. 24.2% p = 0.01 and 41.9% vs. 32.5% p = 0.007) respectively. Grade3/4 neutropenia was significantly higher in taxane group than non-taxane group (27.8% vs 19.4% p = 0.02). Median PFS and OS was numerically but not significantly higher in the taxane versus the non-taxane group (5.7 vs. 4.4 months, p = 0.45 and 12.1 vs 10 months, p = 0.48, respectively). Conclusions: Compared to non-taxane-based regimens, taxane combinations have higher response rates and may improve survival in APC. Hematologic toxicities are worse with taxane containing regimens. Taxane combinations should be the preferred regimen for suitable men with APC.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".