Bevacizumab (Bev) in combination with XELOX or FOLFOX4: Updated efficacy results from XELOX-1/ NO16966, a randomized phase III trial in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4028 Background: NO16966 is the first phase III trial to evaluate the combination of Bev with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX4 or the XELOX regimen) in the first-line setting. Methods: 1401 pts were randomized to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin, 5-FU, leucovorin as described previously) or XELOX (oxaliplatin 130mg/m 2 iv, capecitabine 1000mg/m 2 bid oral d1–14, q3w) plus Bev (5mg/kg q 2 weeks for FOLFOX, 7.5mg/kg q 3 weeks for XELOX) or Placebo in a 2x2 factorial design. Results: The addition of Bev to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy demonstrated a significant benefit in terms of PFS in the primary analysis (HR 0.83; 97.5% CI 0.72- 0.95, p=0.0023). Prespecified analysis of PFS on treatment (defined as progressive disease or death within 28 days from the last dose of study treatment) and PFS analysis based on tumor assessments by an independent review committee (IRC) were consistent with the benefit observed in the primary analysis. PFS results are shown in Table 1 . 34% of patients have died and the median follow-up for survival at this time is 18.6 months. Mature overall survival data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This large, international phase III trial demonstrates that the addition of Bev to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens significantly improves PFS. [Table: see text] [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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".