A phase II study of gemcitabine plus oral etoposide in the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors have designed a non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). This regimen capitalizes on the mild toxicity of gemcitabine, a novel nucleoside analog. METHODS: A total of 46 chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were enrolled. Eligible patients were treated with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral etoposide 50 mg daily for 14 days, which was increased to 21 days if there was no World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 3 or 4 toxicity in the 1st 2 cycles (each cycle was 28 days long). All patients were included for analysis of response and survival according to an intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 43.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30. 7-60.2%). There was 1 complete response (2.2%) and 19 partial responses (41.3%). The median survival was 48.0 weeks (95% CI, 38. 1-75.9 weeks) and the 1-year survival rate was 45% (95% CI, 29-62%). The median time to progression for all patients was 39.2 weeks (95% CI, 35.7-49.7 weeks). World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 3 and 4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was reported in 29%, 32%, and 18% of patients, respectively. Two patients had reactivation of hepatitis B viral infection that resulted in WHO Grade 4 hepatic dysfunction. Other nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: This non-cisplatin-based regimen of gemcitabine and oral etoposide achieved a high response and survival rate. Toxicity appeared to be less severe than that associated with existing cisplatin-based regimens. A randomized study of this regimen versus a cisplatin-based regimen is indicated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".