Perioperative NALIRIFOX in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The open-label, multicenter, phase II nITRO trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Upfront surgery followed by postoperative treatment is a commonly adopted treatment for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (rPDAC). However, the risk of positive surgical margins, the poor recovery that often impairs postoperative treatments, and the risk of recurrence might limit the outcome of this strategy. This study evaluated the safety and the activity of liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m 2 + 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 + leucovorin 400 mg/m 2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m 2 (NALIRIFOX) in the perioperative treatment of patients with rPDAC. Methods Eligible patients had a rPDAC with <180° interface with major veins' wall. Patients received 3 cycles before and 3 cycles after resection with NALIRIFOX, days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients undergoing an R0 resection. Results 107 patients began preoperative treatment. Nine patients discontinued the treatment because of related or unrelated adverse events. Disease-control rate was 92.9%. 87 patients underwent surgical exploration, 11 had intraoperative evidence of metastatic disease, and 1 died for surgical complications. R0 resection rate was 65.3%. 49 patients completed the three postoperative cycles. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea and neutropenia. Median overall survival (OS) of ITT patients was 32.3 months (95% CI 27.8-44.3). Median disease-free and OS from surgery of resected patients were 19.3 (95% CI 12.6-34.1) and 40.3 months (95% CI 29-NA), respectively. Conclusion Perioperative NALIRIFOX was manageable and active, and deserves further investigation in randomized trials comparing it with standard upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".