Predictive and prognostic features of metastatic colorectal cancer arising from the transverse colon: A pooled analysis of the CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 randomized trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
124 Background: Primary tumour location is predictive of anti-EGFR benefit and prognostic in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon cancers are often categorized as right sided, but the optimal cut point is unclear. Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)/Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group ( AGITG) CO.17 compared Cetuximab (Cet) vs. best supportive care (BSC) in mCRC. CCTG/AGITG CO.20 studied the addition of Brivanib Alaninate to Cet in pre-treated KRAS wildtype (WT) mCRC. We investigated the predictive and prognostic features of transverse colon primary location in a pooled cohort from these trials. Methods: Data from patients with RAS WT mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 randomized to cetux were analyzed for treatment outcomes according to location - right, transverse and left. The cecum to transverse colon was considered right sided, while the splenic flexure to rectum was considered left sided. Results: 553 patients were included, 201 (36.3%) from CO.17 and 352 (63.7%) from CO.20. Primary site distribution was: 32 (5.8%) transverse, 101 (18.3%) right and 420 (75.9%) left. On multivariate analysis from 457 (82.6%) patients treated with Cet, left side was associated with superior OS (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.68, p=0.0006) and PFS (HR, 0.48; 95% CI,0.29-0.79, p=0.004) compared to transverse colon. No significant difference was noted in OS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41-1.31, p=0.30) and PFS (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.46-1.36, p=0.40) between right side versus transverse colon. Sidedness was not associated with prognostic difference in OS or PFS in the 96 (17.4%) patients receiving BSC alone. Outcomes according to primary site and treatment are shown. Conclusions: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features to right sided mCRC. In keeping with previous studies, left side was predictive of greater Cet benefit and presented better overall prognosis when single agent Cet was used after 5-FU, oxaliplatin and irinotecan. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".