Adjuvant chemotherapy after potentially curative resection of metastases from colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis of two randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3524 Background: Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (CT) administered after resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases (M) may reduce the risk of recurrence and improved survival but its benefit has never been demonstrated. Two phase III trials (FFCD 9002 and EORTC/NCIC CTG/GIVIO (ENG) trials) with a very similar design showed a trend for improvement in survival after adjuvant CT but had to close prematurely because of slow accrual, lacking the statistical power to demonstrate any significant difference in survival. We report here a pooled analysis based on individual data from these trials. Methods: Patients were required to have a WHO performance status ≤2 and a histologically proven CRC with a complete (R0) surgical resection of the primary tumour and of ≤4 liver or lung metastases. They were randomized between chemotherapy (CT arm) [5FU 400 mg/m2 (FFCD) or 370 mg/m2 (ENG) IV q.d. x 5 days plus dl-leucovorin 200 mg/m2 (FFCD) or l-leucovorin 100 mg/m2 (ENG) IV q.d. x 5 days, 6 cycles at 28 days intervals] or surgery alone (S arm). Results: 129 pts were included in the ENG trial between 1994 and 1998, 173 in the FFCD trial between 1991 and 2001. 24 pts (ENG: 22, FFCD: 2) were excluded from analysis for missing post-baseline data: 278 pts were included in the present analysis (CT: 138, S: 140). Patients’ characteristics by treatment arm (% CT/S): males 58.0/63.6, age <70 years: 79.7/79.3, stage IV primary tumor: 29.0/47.1 (p=0.02), liver M 94.2/93.6, ≥2 M resected: 33.3/31.4. Conclusion: Adjuvant CT with a 5FU bolus based regimen tends to improve survival after complete resection of CRC metastases. The observed improvement in median PFS was almost statistically significant whereas the improvement in median OS (more than 1 year) was not (lack of statistical power?). This pooled analysis supports the use of adjuvant CT, with a more effective regimen, after potentially curative resection of CRC metastases. Updated results will be presented. (Supported by AROLD) [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".