Continued Cigarette Smoking by Patients Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Is Associated With Decreased Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of continued smoking by patients receiving chemotherapy (CHT) and radiotherapy (RT) for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LSCLC) on toxicity and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out on 215 patients with LSCLC treated between 1989 and 1999. Treatment consisted of six cycles of alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and etoposide, cisplatin (EP). Thoracic RT was concurrent with EP (cycle 2 or 3) only. Patients were known smokers, with their smoking status recorded at the start of chemoradiotherapy (CHT/RT). RT interruption during concurrent CHT/RT was used as the marker for treatment toxicity. RESULTS: Of 215 patients, smoking status was recorded for 186 patients (86.5%), with 79 (42%) continuing to smoke and 107 (58%) abstaining during CHT/RT. RT interruptions were recorded in 38 patients (20.5%), with a median duration of 5 days (range, 1 to 18 days). Median survival for former smokers was greater than for continuing smokers (18 v 13.6 months), with 5-year actuarial overall survival of 8.9% versus 4%, respectively (log-rank P =.0017). Proportion of noncancer deaths was comparable between the two cohorts. Continuing smokers did not have a greater incidence of toxicity-related treatment breaks (P =.49), but those who continued to smoke and also experienced a treatment break had the poorest overall survival (median, 13.4 months; log-rank P =.0014). CONCLUSION: LSCLC patients who continue to smoke during CHT/RT have poorer survival rates than those who do not. Smoking did not have an impact on the rate of treatment interruptions attributed to toxicity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".