MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981587467 · doi:10.3747/co.19.908

Neoadjuvant Erlotinib and Surgical Resection of a Stage IIIA Papillary Adenocarcinoma of the Lung with an L861Q Activating EGFR Mutation

2012· article· en· W1981587467 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Ong, Keith Kwan, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid, Mark Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErlotinibAdenocarcinomaEpidermal growth factor receptorOncologyNeoadjuvant therapyInternal medicineEGFR inhibitorsLung cancerStage (stratigraphy)MutationSurgical resectionCancer researchPathologyCancerGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) is evolving, as is an understanding of predictive biomarkers for tumour response in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this report, we describe a case of rapidly progressing, borderline-resectable, clinical stage IIIA (micro) papillary adenocarcinoma in a 78-year-old woman who experienced a profound response to neoadjuvant erlotinib without short-term toxicity. On EGFR mutation testing, this patient had an uncommon activating point mutation at L861Q in exon 21. Her response permitted successful surgical resection with negative margins and avoidance of chemoradiation, which she was deemed too frail to tolerate. Our case addresses unique management issues such as preoperative testing for EGFR mutation, utility of histology in predicting EGFR mutations, and use of EGFR-TKIs pre- and postoperatively for potentially resectable 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207