Clinical effectiveness and clinical toxicity associated with platinum-based doublets in the first-line setting for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Chinese patients: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence lacks for clinical effectiveness and clinical toxicity associated with platinum-based doublets in the first-line setting for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (advNS-NSCLC) in Chinese patients. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for advNS-NSCLC in four Chinese tertiary care hospitals from 2007 to 2012 were retrospectively identified for chart review. Propensity score methods created best matched pairs for platinum/pemetrexed versus other platinum-based doublets for head-to-head comparisons of early treatment discontinuation (completed treatment cycles <4), treatment failure (progressive disease or early treatment discontinuation), and adverse events (AE). Conventional multiple logistic regression analyses were also performed to confirm the impact of the studied platinum-based doublets on early treatment discontinuation, treatment failure, and hematological AE using vinorelbine/platinum as reference. RESULTS: 1,846 patients were included to create propensity score matched treatment groups for platinum/pemetrexed versus docetaxel (95 pairs), paclitaxel (118 pairs), gemcitabine (199 pairs), and vinorelbine (72 pairs)-contained doublet, respectively. Platinum/pemetrexed was associated with significantly lower risks of early treatment discontinuation (odds ratio (OR) ranged from 0.239, p = 0.001 relative to platinum/docetaxel to 0.389, p = 0.003 relative to platinum/paclitaxel) and treatment failure (OR ranged from 0.257, p < 0.001 relative to platinum/paclitaxel to 0.381, p < 0.001 relative to platinum/gemcitabine) than the other four studied doublets. Platinum/pemetrexed was also associated with several significantly lower hematological AE rates, such as versus platinum/paclitaxel (any hematological AE: OR 0.508, p = 0.032), platinum/gemcitabine (i.e., any hematological AE: OR 0.383, p < 0.001; anemia: OR 0.357, p < 0.001; thrombocytopenia: OR 0.345, p < 0.001) or platinum/vinorelbine (i.e., neutropenia: OR 0.360, p = 0.046; anemia: OR 0.181, p = 0.014) in matched patients. Further conventional logistic regression analyses indicated that pemetrexed/platinum was ranked lowest for the risks of early treatment discontinuation (OR 0.326, p < 0.001), treatment failure (OR 0.460, p < 0.001), and any hematological AE (OR 0.329, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed plus platinum had significantly superior clinical effectiveness as compared to the other platinum-based doublets with third-generation cytotoxic agents and was also associated with several lower hematological toxicity rates than gemcitabine or vinorelbine-based doublet in the first-line setting for advNS-NSCLC in Chinese patients.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".