Duration of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for duration of adjuvant chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin for patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer based on the results of trials of 3 months compared with 6 months of treatment. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. RESULTS: Pooled data from the six International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) Collaboration randomized controlled trials comprise the evidence base for these guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations for therapy duration apply to patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer who are being offered adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine. Recommendations are informed by the findings of a recent pooled analysis of clinical trials that compared 6 months versus 3 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. For patients at a high risk of recurrence (T4 and/or N2), adjuvant chemotherapy should be offered for a duration of 6 months. For patients at a low risk of recurrence (T1, T2, or T3 and N1), either 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy or a shorter duration of 3 months may be offered on the basis of a potential reduction in adverse events and no significant difference in disease-free survival with the 3-month regimen. In determining duration of therapy, the Expert Panel recommends a shared decision-making approach, taking into account patient characteristics, values and preferences, and other factors and including a discussion of the potential for benefit and risks of harm associated with treatment duration. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".