Randomized Phase III Trial of Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Observation in Completely Resected Stage IB and II Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Survival Analysis of JBR-10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (ACT) is now an accepted standard for completely resected stage II and III A non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Long-term follow-up is important to document persistent benefit and late toxicity. We report here updated overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with completely resected stage IB (T2N0, n = 219) or II (T1-2N1, n = 263) NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of vinorelbine/cisplatin or observation. All efficacy analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Median follow-up was 9.3 years (range, 5.8 to 13.8; 33 lost to follow-up); there were 271 deaths in 482 randomly assigned patients. ACT continues to show a benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .04). There was a trend for interaction with disease stage (P = .09; HR for stage II, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.92; P = .01; stage IB, HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.52; P = .87). ACT resulted in significantly prolonged DSS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.97; P = .03). Observation was associated with significantly higher risk of death from lung cancer (P = .02), with no difference in rates of death from other causes or second primary malignancies between the arms. CONCLUSION Prolonged follow-up of patients from the JBR.10 trial continues to show a benefit in survival for adjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit appears to be confined to N1 patients. There was no increase in death from other causes in the chemotherapy arm.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".