Tolerability of pemetrexed and oxaliplatin in the treatment of stage III colon cancer during raltitrexed shortage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies diagnosed in Canada. Currently, adjuvant colorectal cancer treatment primarily includes chemotherapeutic regimens such as FOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), as well as alternative regimens such as TOMOX (raltitrexed, oxaliplatin). However, the prevalence of drug shortages in today's society may make these preferred regimens inaccessible. The purpose of this case report is to highlight the tolerability of an alternative adjuvant regimen (pemetrexed plus oxaliplatin) that has undergone both phase I and II clinical trials for the treatment of colorectal cancer. The patient presented in this case report is a 57-year-old female diagnosed with Stage III colon cancer. This patient received seven cycles of pemetrexed plus oxaliplatin and experienced several adverse events, with the majority of them being mild in nature including fatigue and cold dysesthesia. However, the patient also experienced progressive neuropathy which required a dose reduction and subsequent discontinuation of oxaliplatin. Overall, pemetrexed and oxaliplatin's tolerability seems comparable to other regimens used to treat colorectal cancer and could potentially be an option to consider in the future for alternative treatment of colorectal cancer pending further trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".