MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase II trial of preoperative (POP) irinotecan (I) + cisplatin (C) and radiotherapy for esophageal cancer

2006· article· en· W3011966668 on OpenAlexaff
A. Visbal, Gail Darling, Rebecca Wong, Maha Guindi, J. Hornby, R. Feld, Jolie Ringash, Shaf Keshavjee, E. Chen, J. Brierly, Jennifer J. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanSurgeryEsophageal cancerGastroenterologyNeutropeniaInternal medicineEsophagitisRadiation therapyEsophagectomyNauseaPerioperativeMucositisChemoradiotherapyExternal beam radiotherapyChemotherapyCancerBrachytherapyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4056 Background: Esophagectomy (E) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) yields limited survival; this phase II trial assess feasibility and efficacy of induction chemo-radiotherapy followed by E. Methods: Patients (pts) with LAEC of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), ECOG PS ≤ 2 and surgical candidates underwent POP I (65mg/m2) + C (30mg/m2) on weeks 1,2,4,5,7,8 + concurrent conformal radiotherapy (40Gy/20 fractions (F) during wk 4–7) and external beam boost (10Gy/5F on wk 8); E was performed on wk 12–16 after restaging. Pts receiving 75% of POP chemotherapy were eligible for pathologic (p) evaluation; planned sample size 36 nonM1A pts. Results: 52 pts enrolled from 11/02 to 12/05, mean age 60 yr (33–79), male:40, GEJ:TE/15:37; 37 adenocarcinoma, 13 SCC, 2 other; 13 pts were stage IIA, 7 IIB, 22 III, and 10 IVA. Toxicity during POP treatment included ANC (G3/4:36%), febrile neutropenia (9%), diarrhea (G3:9%), nausea (G3:6%), esophagitis (G3:2%) and anorexia (G3/4:15%); 3 pts stopped treatment due to toxicity, 2 withdrew, 2 progressed becoming non-operable, 1 died of a stroke and 1 from central line sepsis. Clinical response by RECIST was CR:2%, PR:30%, SD:62% and PD in 6%. Dysphagia improved or resolved in 34/47 pts (72%) during POP treatment. Of 43 evaluable pts, 41 underwent E, achieving R0 resection in 98% (1 refused E, 1 pending). Perioperative complications included anastomotic leak (23%), Afib (21%), pneumonia (21%), delirium (10%) and aspiration (10%); 1 pt died from aspiration. 7 pts (17%) achieved pCR, 2 of whom were pretreatment clinical stage IIA, 1 IIb and 4 III; downstaging occurred in 3/7 pts; 15 pts (36.6%) achieved minimal residual disease, 15 (36.6%) pPR, and 4 (9.8%) pSD. At a median (med) follow-up of 15.2 months (1.3–34.5m), 16/52 patients died (med & 2yr overall survival (OS) of 29 m & 66%). Of 41 resected pts, 17 recurred (med & 2yr disease free survival (DFS) of 20m & 46%) of whom 10 died of progression (med & 2-yr OS of 29m & 68.4%). 2yr DFS & OS was 83% & 86% in pCR vs 41% & 76% in non-pCR. Conclusion: In LAEC, induction I/C and radiotherapy followed by E is associated with 72% dysphagia improvement, a significant but manageable toxicity profile, and encouraging survival compared to historical controls. [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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.408 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207