Effect of Different Durations of Adjuvant Capecitabine Monotherapy on the Outcome of High-Risk Stage II and Stage III Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study Based on a CRC Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The duration of adjuvant chemotherapy recommended by the NCCN guidelines is 6 months. However, patients are not compliant with intravenous chemotherapy for many reasons; therefore, one approach is to obtain a survival benefit by prolonging the duration of capecitabine monotherapy. (2) Methods: A total of 355 qualified colorectal cancer (CRC) patients from January 2010 to December 2020 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University were selected to receive capecitabine monotherapy for 6−9 months and >12 months. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). (3) Results: Among stage III patients, in the >12 months (12M) and 6−9 months (6M) groups, the 5-year DFS rates were 80.7%% and 66.8%, respectively, and the 5-year OS rates were 94.7%% and 88.8%, respectively. Among high-risk stage II patients, in the >12 months (12M) and 6−9 months (6M) groups, the 5-year DFS rates were 81.5% and 78.6%, respectively, and the 5-year OS rates were 93.1% and 84.2%, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Twelve months of chemotherapy demonstrated superior OS and DFS to that of six months in the stage III group but showed no difference in the high-risk stage II group. The better OS and DFS observed in the 12-month treatment period could be of value in selected cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".