MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dose-dense early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: Randomized, phase II trial.

2019· article· en· W2947614825 on OpenAlexaff
Rongyu Zang, Tingyan Shi, Rong Jiang, Hong Pu, Huijuan Yang, Dongsheng Tu, Zhiyuan Dai, Yulang Cai, Yuqin Zhang, Xi Cheng, Huixun Jia, Ruiqin Tu, Huaying Wang, Jie Tang, Yuting Luan, Shumo Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinEtoposideOvarian cancerDebulkingTaxaneChemotherapyInternal medicineSurgeryCisplatinGastroenterologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5514 Background: Dose-dense early postoperative intraperitoneal chemo (DD-EPIC) had been carried out in advanced ovarian cancer (OC) pts in China over the past three decades but it was not proved by a prospective study. This trial was designed to confirm the benefit of DD-EPIC in delaying progression and improving survival. Methods: In a multicenter, phase 2 trial, pts with FIGO IIIC-IV OC and optimal debulking surgery (residual disease ≤1cm) were randomly allocated to receive 4 doses of weekly DD-EPIC with cisplatin (50mg/m2) and etoposide (100mg/m2) followed by 6 cycles of intravenous (iv) chemo with carboplatin and taxane every 3 weeks (DD-EPIC group), or standard iv chemo alone (iv group). (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01669226). Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 218 pts were randomized, of whom 215 initiated treatment (106 to DD-EPIC and 109 to iv; for efficacy analyses). Totally, 36 pts (16·7%) were received neoadjuvant chemo. With a median of 61·9 mos follow-up, 122 pts died (54 in DD-EPIC and 68 in iv group). Remarkable OS benefit of DD-EPIC was recorded (67·5 mos for DD-EPIC vs. 46·3 mos for iv; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·49-1·00, P=0·047). Pts in DD-EPIC had a significantly increased median PFS compared with those in iv group (21·7 vs. 16·8 mos; HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·47-0·86, P=0·003). Median TFST was 25·1 vs. 18·0 mos in favor of DD-EPIC (HR 0·62, 95%CI 0·46-0·83, P=0·002). Similar findings were detected in TSST (42·2 vs. 29·3 mos; HR 0·66, 95%CI 0·47-0·94, P=0·019). Grade 3 and 4 Leucopenia (53·8% vs. 35·2%), anemia (23·6% vs. 5·6%) and gastrointestinal events (10·4% vs. 1·9%) were more common in DD-EPIC ( P=0·006, P<0·001 and P=0·010, respectively). Ninety-one pts were detected by gBRCA testing, with 25·3% of cases carrying deleterious BRCAm, but PFS and OS benefit were observed in patients with BRCA-wild type (HR 0·46 and 0·55, 95%CI 0·27-0·81 and 0·27-1·11, respectively). Conclusions: DD-EPIC with a higher completion rate and acceptable treatment burden was associated with longer OS than standard iv alone. Owing to the benefit of relatively long-term OS, DD-EPIC may be considered as a valuable option for OC, particularly in developing countries and BRCA-wild type pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01669226. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→