MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308019820 · doi:10.1186/s12885-022-10198-y

The influence of adjuvant chemotherapy dose intensity on overall survival in resected colon cancer: a multicentered retrospective analysis

2022· article· en· W4308019820 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Breadner, Jonathan M. Loree, Winson Y. Cheung, Meghan Gipson, Suganija Lakkunarajah, Karen Mulder, Jennifer L. Spartlin, Shiying Kong, Philip Q. Ding, Sharlene Gill, Stephen Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxaliplatinCapecitabineFOLFOXColorectal cancerInternal medicineSurgical oncologyRegimenOncologyChemotherapyFluorouracilCancerRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in North America. Fluorouracil and oxaliplatin based adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer (CC) reduces cancer recurrence, but also causes significant toxicity requiring dose reductions. The effect of dose intensity on survival outcomes is not fully understood and strengthening the evidence supports informed decision making between patients and oncologists. METHODS: Patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, between 2006 and 2011, for resected colon cancer at four Canadian academic cancer centers were retrospectively analyzed. All patients must have received oxaliplatin with either capecitabine (CAPOX) or 5-FU (FOLFOX). Dose intensity (DI) was calculated as total delivered dose of an individual chemotherapy agent divided by the cumulative intended dose of that agent. The influence of DI on overall survival was examined. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-one patients with high-risk stage II or stage III resected CC were eligible and included in the analysis. FOLFOX was the most common regimen (69.6%) with 29.7% of patients receiving CAPOX and 0.7% receiving both therapies. Median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median DI for 5-FU and capecitabine was 100% and 100% with 13.6% and 9.8% of patients receiving ≤ 80% DI, respectively. The median DI of oxaliplatin was 70% with 56.8% of patients receiving ≤ 80% DI. A DI of > 80% for each chemotherapy component was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared to those with a DI of ≤ 80% (5-FU HR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.08-0.65, p = 0.006; capecitabine HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.33-0.94, p = 0.026; oxaliplatin HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.33-0.82, p = 0.005). Patients with T2 and/or N2 disease with an oxaliplatin DI > 80% had a trend towards improved survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.38-1.02, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In resected CC an adjuvant chemotherapy DI of > 80%, of each chemotherapy agent, is associated with improved overall survival.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207