MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes relative to paclitaxel dose-intensity when administered with ramucirumab in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

2020· article· en· W3032799488 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Allen, Chihiro Suzuki, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Lucy Xiaolu, Marta Honório, Iván Lyra-González, Eric Xueyu Chen, Gail Darling, Jonathan Yeung, Sangeetha Kalimuthu, Rebecca Wong, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Elena Elimova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRamucirumabDocetaxelNeutropeniaInternal medicinePaclitaxelTaxaneOxaliplatinCancerGastroenterologyCisplatinChemotherapyBreast cancerOncologySurgeryColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16539 Background: Combination paclitaxel (PTX) and ramucirumab (RAM) is standard second-line treatment for gastric and GEJ cancers. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is considered a potential obstacle to administering a maximal dose of PTX, potentially limiting efficacy. We sought to determine the dose-intensity and outcomes for patients receiving this treatment. Methods: A retrospective analysis of gastric and GEJ cancer patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (2012-2017) was performed identifying all patients who received PTX and RAM during their treatment course. The primary objective was to determine the dose-intensity of PTX administration. Secondary objectives included identification of the reason for dose-reduction (DR), and comparing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to PTX DR. Results: 45 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 57.2y, 34 (76%) were male, 7 (16%) were Asian, 5 (11%) patients were her2 positive. 42 (93%) patients received first-line treatment containing a potential neuro-toxic agent (cisplatin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel or paclitaxel). 22 (49%) subjects required PTX DR. The median number of cycles administered for subjects not requiring a DR and those with dose-reduced PTX was 3 v 6 (p < 0.001) respectively, with the median number of PTX doses administered 8 v 15 (p0.0022). The mean dose-intensity was 100 v 83% (p < 0.001). PN was the reason for DR in 32% (n = 7) of subjects, whilst neutropenia was 41% (n = 9). The reason for treatment cessation was disease progression in 91% of subjects, irrespective of whether they required a DR or not. Median PFS was 2.8m (95% CI 2.1-4.8) (100% dose PTX) and 5.5m (95% CI 4.8-8.6) in those requiring a DR (p0.0006). Median OS, measured from the initial diagnosis of incurable/metastatic disease was 16.4m (95% CI 13.7-22.9) and 18.5m (95% CI 14.9-47.5) respectively (p0.0953). Conclusions: Approximately half of the patients required a PTX DR, of whom a clinically significant 32% were DR due to PN, slightly less than those DR due to neutropenia. PFS was longer in those requiring a DR, which may reflect that those on treatment longer are more likely to experience toxicity and require a subsequent DR. PTX DR did not significantly affect OS, thus whilst PTX toxicity remains a clinical concern we did not identify that a DR resulted in an appreciable difference in treatment efficacy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207