Primary results of the AGO-Zervix-1 Study: A prospective, randomized phase III study to compare the effects of paclitaxel and topotecan with those of cisplatin and topotecan in the treatment of patients with recurrent and persistent cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Before the era of immunotherapies and antibody–drug conjugates, there were limited chemotherapeutic options for patients with recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Combination therapies with cisplatin have shown some superiority over monotherapy. This study examined platinum-free treatment regimens, comparing a combination of topotecan and paclitaxel (TP) with topotecan and cisplatin (TC) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, with or without prior platinum-based treatment. Methods The AGO-Zervix-1 Study (NCT01405235) is a prospective, randomized phase III study in which patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to treatment within the control arm with topotecan (0.75 mg/m 2 ) on days 1–3 and cisplatin (50 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks and in the study arm topotecan (1.75 mg/m 2 ) and paclitaxel (70 mg/m 2 ) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or treatment. The primary study aim was overall survival; progression-free survival, toxicity, and quality of life were secondary aims. The interim and final analysis is here reported after recruitment of 173 of 312 planned patients. Results Median overall survival in the TP arm was 9.6 months, compared with 12.0 months in the TC arm (log-rank test, P = 0.33). Median progression-free survival rates were 4.4 months with TP and 4.2 months with TC (log-rank test, P = 0.47). Leukopenia and nausea/vomiting were more frequent in the cisplatin-containing arm. Otherwise, toxicity profiles were comparable. There were no differences in FACT-G–assessed quality of life. Conclusion Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care chemotherapy regimen for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".