First-Line Palliative Chemotherapy for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer: Practice Patterns and Outcomes in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical trials have shown that palliative chemotherapy (PC) improves survival in patients with incurable esophageal and gastric cancer; however, outcomes achieved in routine practice are unknown. We describe treatment patterns and outcomes among patients treated in the general population of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The Ontario Cancer Registry was used to identify patients with esophageal or gastric cancer from 2007 to 2016, and data were linked to other health administrative databases. Patients who received curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy were excluded. Factors associated with the receipt of PC were determined using logistic regression. First-line PC regimens were categorized, and trends over time were reported. Survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The cohort included 9,848 patients; 22% (2,207 of 9,848) received PC. Patients receiving PC were younger (mean age, 63 v 74 years; P < .0001) and more likely male (71% v 65%; P < .0001). Thirty-seven percent of non-PC patients saw a medical oncologist in consultation. Over the study period, utilization of PC increased (from 11% in 2007 to 19% in 2016; P < .0001), whereas the proportion of patients receiving triplet regimens decreased (65% in 2007 to 56% in 2016; P = .04). In the PC group, the median overall and cancer-specific survival from treatment initiation was 7.2 months. CONCLUSION: One fifth of patients with incurable esophageal and gastric cancer in the general population receive PC. Median survival of patients treated in routine practice is inferior to that in clinical trials. Only one third of patients not treated with PC had consultation with a medical oncologist. Further work is necessary to understand low utilization of PC and medical oncology consultation in this patient population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".