Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery improves survival outcomes compared with definitive chemoradiation in the treatment of stage IIIA N2 non-small-cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare survival in patients with stage IIIA (N2) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) or surgery plus neoadjuvant chemoradiation or chemotherapy (CRTS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 242 patients with stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC treated with curative intent between 1997 and 2007, identified 215 patients with surgically resectable disease. Overall survival outcomes were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, gender, histology, smoking history and performance status. Recurrences were compared using competing risks methods, including the proportional subdistribution hazards regression model. RESULTS: CRTS was used to treat 104 patients and CRT in 111. Comparing CRTS with CRT patients, median age was 60 vs 62, 50 (48%) vs 69 (62%) were male and 65 (62.5%) vs 60 (54%) had adenocarcinoma. Of CRTS patients, 83 (80%) had a lobectomy. CRTS patients compared with CRT patients had decreased risk of recurrence at any site [hazard ratio (HR) = 0. 46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.64 P < 0.0001], local recurrence (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.87, P = 0.013), loco--regional recurrence (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.78, P = 0.002) and death (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.33-0.62, P < 0.0001) with a median survival of 4.2 years vs 1.7 years). Risk of distant recurrence was also reduced in the surgical group (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38-0.87, P = 0.017). Treatment-related mortality was low in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: For patients with surgically resectable stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery reduces loco-regional and distant recurrence and improves survival. Treatment-related mortality was not significantly increased compared with the patients treated with CRT alone.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".