MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304989346 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4445

Comparing Trial and Real-world Adjuvant Oxaliplatin Delivery in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer Using a Longitudinal Cumulative Dose

2022· article· en· W4304989346 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Webster‐Clark, Alexander P. Keil, Nicholas Robert, Jennifer R. Frytak, Marley Boyd, Til Stürmer‎, Hanna K. Sanoff, Daniel Westreich, Jennifer L. Lund

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxaliplatinMedicineFOLFOXOncologyRegimenInternal medicineColorectal cancerChemotherapy regimenFluorouracilStage (stratigraphy)Randomized controlled trialClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy can differ substantially between trial and real-world populations. Adherence metrics like relative dose intensity (RDI) cannot capture the timing of modifications and mask differences in the total amount of chemotherapy received. Objective: To compare oxaliplatin delivery between MOSAIC trial participants and patients treated in the US Oncology Network with stage III colon cancer using a longitudinal cumulative dose (LCD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used secondary data from the MOSAIC trial, an international randomized clinical trial (concluded in 2004), and electronic health records from US Oncology (2009-2018), a network of community oncology practices in the US. It included participants in MOSAIC with stage III colon cancer who were randomized to receive treatment with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil/leucovorin (n = 663) and US Oncology patients with stage III colon cancer who were treated with a modified FOLFOX-6 regimen (n = 2523). Exposures: Oxaliplatin and fluorouracil/leucovorin. Outcomes and Measures: We evaluated RDI and LCD over time and at the end of treatment in the MOSAIC and US Oncology populations. We used bootstrapping to estimate 95% confidence bands for LCD differences between the populations. Results: The 663 MOSAIC participants (296 women [44.7%]) and 2523 US Oncology patients (1245 women [49.4%]) were generally similar with respect to demographic characteristics. Median RDI was lower in US Oncology (80% in MOSAIC vs 70% in US Oncology). The LCD also suggested differences in the total amount of oxaliplatin received between populations; the final median LCD in US Oncology was 10.2% lower than in MOSAIC, equivalent to receiving 1.2 fewer treatment cycles less of oxaliplatin. This difference only began 133 days into treatment and persisted after accounting for covariates, likely in terms of more frequent oxaliplatin treatment discontinuation in US Oncology patients than their MOSAIC counterparts. Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that real-world patients in community practice in the US treated with modified FOLFOX 6 received less oxaliplatin than their historical counterparts in the MOSAIC trial, with differences manifesting late in the treatment course. The LCD allowed us to identify the amount and extent of these differences, the timing of which was unclear when using RDI alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00275210.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207