Adding Three Cycles of CAPOX after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Increases the Rates of Complete Response for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: the total neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (TNT) includes different strategies, but the most appropriate model remains uncertain. The purpose of this retrospectively study was to evaluate the safety and pathological response in the consolidation chemotherapy model. Methods: patients with cT3/T4 or TxN + M0 rectal cancer that were receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (50 Gy with oral capecitabine)/TNT (CRT followed by three cycles of CAPOX) during September 2017 to September 2019 in our department were included. All of the patients were recommended to receive radical surgery. Results: a total of 197 patients were included. Eighty-one patients received CRT, while one hundred and sixteen patients received TNT. Nine patients did not undergo surgery because of the distant metastases (one patient (1.2%) in CRT group, two patients (1.7%) in TNT group) or a refusal of resection (two patients in CRT group, four patients in TNT group). The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 32.7% in TNT compared with 12.8% in CRT (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in grade 3 acute toxicities of neoadjuvant treatment and surgical complications between the two groups. Conclusions: the consolidation chemotherapy model is safe for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and it has a high pCR rate. The long-term follow-up is necessary to be evaluated in a future prospective, randomized trial.
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".