Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with oesophageal mucinous adenocarcinoma: Post-hoc analysis of the UK MRC OE02 and OE05 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adenocarcinoma with more than 50% extracellular mucin is a relatively rare histological subtype of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. The clinical impact of extracellular mucin in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OeAC) has not been investigated in detail. We hypothesised that patients with mucinous OeAC (OeAC mucin ) do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods OeAC patients either treated by surgery alone in the OE02 trial (S-patients) or by neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS-patients) in OE02 or OE05 trials were included. Cancers from 1055 resection specimens (OE02 [test cohort]: 187 CS, 185 S; OE05 [validation cohort]: 683 CS) were classified as either mucinous (more than 50% of the tumour area consists of extracellular mucin, OeAC mucin ) or non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (OeAC non-mucin ). The relationship between histological phenotype, clinicopathological characteristics, survival and treatment was analysed. Results Overall, 7.3% and 9.6% OeAC were classified as OeAC mucin in OE02 and OE05, respectively. In OE02, the frequency of OeAC mucin was similar in S and CS-patients. Patients with OeAC mucin treated with surgery alone had a poorer overall survival compared with OeAC non-mucin patients (hazard ratio: 2.222, 95% confidence interval: 1.08–4.56, P = 0.025). Patients with OeAC mucin treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery had similar survival as OeAC non-mucin patients in test and validation cohort. Conclusions This is the first study to suggest in a post-hoc analysis of material from two independent phase III clinical trials that the poor survival of patients with mucinous OeAC can be improved by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Future studies are warranted to identify potential underlying biological, biochemical or pharmacokinetic interactions between extracellular mucin and chemotherapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".