Time to adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in non–small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The time interval between surgery and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) may impact survival in colorectal and breast cancers. This is the first report describing the association between time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TTAC) and survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: All cases of NSCLC diagnosed in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2006 who underwent surgical resection (n = 3354) were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. TTAC was defined as the interval between dates of surgery and initiation of ACT. Factors associated with TTAC greater than 10 weeks were evaluated by logistic regression. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to describe the effect of delayed TTAC (analyzed as a continuous variable) on overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 1032 cases treated with ACT, the median TTAC was 8 weeks (range, 1-16 weeks); 35% of cases initiated ACT more than 10 weeks after surgery. Rates of TTAC greater than 10 weeks varied widely across regions (11%-50%, P = .001). There was no significant association between increased comorbidity and delayed TTAC; there was a trend toward greater delay in TTAC with longer postoperative hospital stay (P = .054) and postoperative readmission to hospital (P = .056). Male sex, higher stage of disease, greater comorbidity, and more extensive surgery were independently associated with inferior survival. TTAC was not associated with overall survival (odds ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.99-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of NSCLC patients treated with ACT in the general population start ACT beyond 10 weeks after surgery. Delayed TTAC does not appear to be associated with inferior survival in NSCLC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".