Treatment patterns and survival outcomes of older patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): A Canadian real-world evidence study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
385 Background: We aimed to compare chemotherapy regimens used and overall survival (OS) among geriatric patients (≥ 75 years) with APC as compared to old (65-74 years) and young (< 65 years) patients with APC. Methods: In this retrospective population-based analysis, we identified patients with APC (defined as inoperable/metastatic disease) from 5 large provinces in Canada who were diagnosed from 2011 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to derive OS and multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to determine the associations of different age groups on OS. Results: We included 636 patients diagnosed with APC of whom 258 (40.6%), 247 (38.8%) and 131 (20.6%) were young, old and geriatric. Approximately half (45.7%) of all patients were women. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was known in 508 patients at diagnosis among whom 62.2% were 0-1 and 37.8% were 2+. ECOG PS was more likely to be 2+ in the geriatric group (46.8% vs 41.1% vs 31.3%; P = 0.017). Most patients (95.8%) had metastatic disease while the remaining patients had inoperable locally advanced disease. Within the study cohort, 38.7% received chemotherapy. Treatment rates differed based on age: 41.9% in young patients, 40.9% in old patients and 28.2% in geriatric patients (P = 0.02). Choice of first-line chemotherapy varied and included FOLFIRINOX (F) in 99 (40.2%), gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GN) in 91 (37.0%) and gemcitabine (G) in 56 (22.8%). F, GN and G were administered in 27.0%, 32.4% and 40.5% of geriatric patients, 40.6%, 32.7% and 26.7% of old patients, and 44.4%, 42.6% and 13.0% of young patients, respectively (P = 0.007). After adjusting for baseline factors, both geriatric (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.17; P = 0.175) and old patients were as likely to receive chemotherapy (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.56; P = 0.815) as their young counterparts. The median OS was 7.1 (6.3-8.4), 6.7 (5.5-8.9) and 5.3 (4.3-6.8) months in young, old and geriatric patients, respectively. After adjusting for baseline variables, both geriatric (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96-1.62; P = 0.101) and old patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.42; P = 0.171) experienced similar OS as young patients. ECOG PS 2+ at presentation was associated with worse OS as was treatment with G. Conclusions: Overall treatment rates for APC are low in the real world. The poor OS in geriatric patients with APC is driven by poor PS and use of less intensive chemotherapy. Age alone should not be considered a contraindication for more intensive chemotherapy since treatment benefit is observed across all age groups. [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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".