Continued Cigarette Smoking by Patients Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Is Associated With Decreased Survival
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it