Comparison of Weekly Paclitaxel Regimens in Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: A Single Institution Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weekly paclitaxel (WP) is a chemotherapeutic cornerstone in the management of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma. Multiple WP dosing regimens have been used clinically and studied individually. However, no formal comparison of these regimens is available to provide objective guidance in clinical decision making. The primary objective of this study was to compare the cumulative dose of paclitaxel delivered using 80 mg/m2/week, administered using either a 3 weeks out of 4 (WP3) or a 4 weeks out of 4 (WP4) regimen. The secondary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with both regimens, including efficacy and toxicity parameters. Our retrospective cohort comprised 149 patients harboring platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated at the CHU de Québec from January 2012 to January 2023. WP3 and WP4 reached a similar cumulative dose (1353.7 vs. 1404.2 mg/m2; p = 0.29). No significant differences in the clinical outcomes were observed. The frequency of dose reduction was significantly higher for WP4 than WP3 (44.7% vs. 4.9%; p < 0.01), mainly due to treatment intolerance from toxicity (34.0% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.01). Our data suggest that a WP3 regimen delivers a similar cumulative dose to WP4, hence offering a better tolerability profile without compromising efficacy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".