Head-to-head comparison of first-line FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nabpaclitaxel (GN) in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): A target trial emulation using Canadian real-world data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e18713 Background: When randomized trials are not available, observational real-world data can be used to emulate a (hypothetical) target trial. The procedure starts with the specification of the protocol of the target trial, whose components are then explicitly emulated using observational data. This approach prevents biases that are common when using more conventional methods for real-world data. Advanced pancreatic cancer represents an opportunity for trial emulation since two main frontline therapies, FOLFIRINOX and GN, have never been directly compared in a randomized fashion. The choice between the two regimens is largely based on physician discretion and patient preference rather than direct comparison of effectiveness. Methods: We emulated a target trial using linked data from the provincial cancer registry, electronic health records and various administrative databases from Alberta, Canada. Eligible individuals had locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer diagnosed between Jan. 2015- Dec. 2018, no prior treatment, and adequate hematologic and serum creatinine values. They were followed from diagnosis until March 2020, death, or date of last known contact with the healthcare system. We estimated the effect of initiating FOLFIRINOX vs. GN within 8 weeks of diagnosis on overall survival. Cloning, artificial censoring, and inverse probability weighting were used to address unknown treatment assignment at baseline, non-adherence, and confounding. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and hazard ratios were estimated. Results: Of 298 eligible individuals, 70 adhered to the FOLFIRINOX strategy and 147 to the GN strategy. The mean age was 65 years, 173 (58%) were male, and 247 (83%) had metastatic disease. The adjusted median survival, 1-year survival, and 2-year survival for FOLFIRNOX was 8.2 months (95% CI: 5.3 to 9.4), 36.9% (22.2 to 55.8), and 14.1% (4.8 to 32.2), respectively; and for GN was 4.8 months (3.3 to 5.3), 22.2% (13.6 to 35.9), and 4.7% (1.7 to 13.0), respectively. The adjusted difference in median survival was 3.4 months (0.6 to 11.1) and the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.79 (0.56 to 1.05). Conclusions: Target trial emulations can help to inform medical decision making in situations where head-to-head randomized trial data are unavailable or unfeasible. Findings from this real-world trial emulation suggest improved overall survival with FOLFIRINOX over GN.
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 | 0.039 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".