Assessment of Oral Capecitabine in Elderly Patients with Stage 2 Colon Cancer: Toxicity, Tolerability, and Survival Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly oral capecitabine, is often considered for stage 2 colon cancer despite its controversial use in elderly patients with comorbidities.This study aimed to assess the toxicity, tolerability, and survival outcomes of oral capecitabine in elderly patients diagnosed with T4N0, stage 2 colon cancer.Methods: This retrospective study included 52 patients aged >70 years who were diagnosed with T4N0M0 colon cancer and received adjuvant capecitabine.Treatment toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute of Canada Common Toxicity Criteria v4.Overall survival (OS) was analyzed.Results: The study revealed that 86% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, with 29% exhibiting grade 3 and 23% grade 4 toxicities.Common severe adverse events include diarrhea and nausea.Despite starting treatment at lower doses, a significant proportion of patients required further dose reductions due to side effects, with only seven patients completing the full eight cycles of capecitabine.The median follow-up was 48 months, with disease-free survival and relapse-free survival rates of 61.6% and 67%, respectively.The 5-year OS rate was 71%.Conclusion: In stage 2 colon cancer, administering adjuvant capecitabine to elderly patients aged >70 years poses challenges due to significant toxicity and tolerability issues.However, our study found that even with dose reductions, adjuvant therapy remains crucial for elderly patients, with a 71% 5-year OS rate similar to that of younger populations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".