Comparison of adjuvant chemoradiation to perioperative chemotherapy for the treatment of resected gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarincoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
139 Background: There are several accepted peri-operative treatment modalities for resected gastric (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. In 2008, peri-operative chemotherapy (CT) using the MAGIC protocol was adopted as the preferred approach over adjuvant chemoradiation with the MacDonald protocol (cXRT) in British Columbia. An era to era comparison was performed to determine if there were differences in outcomes. Methods: Data from pharmacy records of patients (pts) referred to 1 of 5 cancer treatment centres in BC were analyzed from Jan 2001-July 2010. Pts that underwent curative resection for GC or GEJ were included. The cXRT cohort was defined as those treated from Jan 2001-Dec 2007, prior to the introduction of CT. The CT cohort included those treated from Jan 2008-July 2010. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the groups. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier methods. Results: Table 1 summarizes the patient characteristics. In the CT arm, there were more males, fewer pts with a LN ratio >0.2, and shorter median follow-up. 92.1% completed pre-operative chemotherapy and 44.7% completed post-operative chemotherapy whereas 73.3% of pts completed cXRT (p<0.05). Median survival was 37.5 and 36.9 months in the CT and cXRT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Delivery of CT was consistent with the MAGIC trial whereas more patients completed cXRT than in the MacDonald trial (73.3% vs. 64%). Outcomes of CT compared to cXRT appear to be similar in this comparative analysis with similar relapse and survival rates. Pre-operative CT results in fewer pts with a LN ratio > 0.2. Either modality can be considered in the peri-operative management of GC or GEJ adenocarcinoma. [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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".