The “Sandwich” Schedule: A Well-Tolerated Adjuvant Treatment Both in Intermediate–High- and High-Risk Endometrial Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: In intermediate-high- and high-risk endometrial cancer (EC), radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) play a basic role. However, there is controversy regarding the optimal timing of their combination. The "sandwich" schedule involves adjuvant CT followed by RT and subsequent CT. The aim of this study is to assess the tolerability and efficacy of the "sandwich" schedule. (2) Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in two gynecological oncology units in Torino, Italy, from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2021. Intermediate-high- and high-risk patients with available clinical data were included. Compliance with treatment, CT and RT toxicities, disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 118 patients were selected: 27.1% FIGO I-II stages and 72.9% III-IV. Most of the patients (75.4%) received a carboplatin-paclitaxel combination, and as much as 94.9% of CT cycles were completed. Chemotherapy-related G3-4 toxicities were detected in 5.3% of the patients, almost half of which were hematological. Grade 2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were reported in 8.4% and 4.2% of cases, respectively. With a median follow-up of 46 months, DFS was 77.6%, CSS was 70% and 5-year OS was 54%. (4) Conclusions: The "sandwich" schedule for CT and RT combination is an effective adjuvant treatment with low toxicity both in intermediate-high- and high-risk EC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".