Similar outcome of elderly patients in Intergroup Trial 0096
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elderly patients comprise a significant portion of patients with limited stage small cell lung carcinoma. However, the prognostic importance of age has been controversial, and concern for toxicity often hinders enthusiasm for offering full dose therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of Intergroup Trial 0096, the authors compared the outcome of patients 70 years or older to those younger than 70 years. Patients received cisplatin 60 mg/m(2), Day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m(2), Days 1-3 for 4 cycles and either once or twice daily concurrent thoracic radiotherapy to 45 grays. RESULTS: Of 381 patients, 50 (13%) were age 70 years or older. The elderly group did not differ significantly from those younger than 70 years with respect to gender distribution, performance status, or weight loss. Severe hematologic toxicity (Grade 4-5: 61% vs. 84%; P < 0.01) and fatal toxicity (1% vs. 10%; P = 0.01) occurred more often among older patients. There were no differences in the frequency of nonhematologic toxicities. Response rate (88% vs. 80%; P = 0.11), event free survival rate (5 year, 19% vs. 16%; P = 0.18), time to local failure, and duration of response did not differ between groups. Overall survival rates (5 year, 22% vs. 16%; P = 0.05) favored those younger than 70 years. Much of the difference in overall survival rates between age groups occurred within the first 6 months on study. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients had similar response and survival rates compared with those younger than 70 years. However, toxicity, particularly hematologic, was greater among the elderly. Selected older patients, such as those with a good performance status, should be considered for optimum treatment approaches.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".