The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4052 Background: We compared the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) of standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-FU chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (N) followed by surgical resection to adjuvant cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (A) following surgical resection for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Methods: 96 patients with stage I to III resectable cancer of the esophagus were enrolled into a prospective randomized trial (NCT00907543) from April 2009 to November 2016. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: N (47 cases) and A (49 cases). The primary end point was HRQOL using the FACT-E at one year. The secondary endpoints included other HRQOL measures, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and adverse events. Results: The median follow-up was 5.0 years [95% CI :4.6 to 5.5]. The majority of patients had adenocarcinomas of the distal esophagus/gastroesophageal junction (80.9% vs 87.8%). The stage distribution was: I 9%; II 22%; III 58%; TxN0-1 10%. Using an intention-to-treat analysis there was no significant difference in the FACT-E total scores between arms at one year (p = 0.759), with 35.5% vs. 41.2% respectively showing an increase of ≥ 15 points ( a priori minimal clinical difference) compared to pre-treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was temporarily significantly inferior at 2 months in the N arm for FACT-E, EORTC OG25, and EQ-5D-3L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). There were no 30-day mortalities but 2.1% vs. 10.2% 90-day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either 5-year OS (37.9% vs 28.9%, p = 0.321) or DFS (34.0% vs 25.5%, p = 0.551. 48.9% of patients required chemotherapy to be modified or stopped in the N arm compared to 57.1% in the A arm (p = 0.421). 51.1% of patients were able to complete the prescribed N arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14.3% in the A arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events significantly more frequent in the neoadjuvant arm (p < 0.05). Surgery related adverse events were significantly more frequent in the neoadjuvant arm (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless if it is given before or after surgery. Less toxic protocols are needed. Clinical trial information: 00907543.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".