MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of positron emission tomography (PET) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A prospective randomized trial (PET START)

2009· article· en· W18653149 on OpenAlexaffabout
Y. Ung, A. Sun, Robert M. MacRae, Chu‐Shu Gu, James R. Wright, Eugene Yu, Gail Darling, Natasha B. Leighl, William K. Evans, Mark N. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Positron emission tomographyLung cancerNuclear medicineRadiologyHazard ratioClinical endpointPET-CTRadiation therapyTarget lesionRandomized controlled trialOncologySurgeryConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7548 Background: Patients with stage III NSCLC are potentially curable using combined modality therapy (CMT) with chemotherapy and radical radiation (RT). The use of PET-CT rather than conventional imaging (CI) may better identify patients for CMT by enhanced tumor staging and improved definition of RT treatment volumes. Methods: Patients with stage III NSCLC (based on histology/cytology, brain CT/MRI, CT thorax, CT/US abdomen, and bone scan) who were considered candidates for CMT were randomized to either PET-CT or CT for RT treatment planning. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not receive CMT because their tumor was upstaged to Stage 4 or their intrathoracic tumor was too extensive for radical RT. Overall survival (OS) and alteration of RT treatment planning volume were secondary outcomes. Target sample size was 400 patients based on a hazard rate reduction of 30% in OS at 2 years in favor of PET-CT with 2-sided alpha = 0.05 and 80% power. We also postulated that 200 patients would be required to detect a 20% difference between arms for the primary endpoint. 5 centers in Ontario participated. Results: The trial commenced in August 2004. In November 2008 after a planned interim analysis for the primary outcome, the Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping recruitment because of superior efficacy with PET-CT. 304 patients were randomized and 289 had analyzable data. 25 patients were unsuitable for CMT: 21 in the PET-CT arm (16 upstaged to Stage 4 and 5 unsuitable for radical RT) and 4 in the CT arm (unsuitable for radical RT). Thus, 21 of 140 (15%) patients in the PET-CT arm achieved the primary outcome compared with 4 of 149 (2.7%) in the CT arm, P= 0.0002. Conclusions: This is the first randomized trial in stage III NSCLC showing that PET-CT is superior to CT planning alone in selecting appropriate patients for CMT. Longer patient follow-up will determine potential impact on OS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207