Flexible chemotherapy regimen with gemcitabine and vinorelbine for metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This Phase II study evaluated a flexible 3- or 4-week dosing schedule of gemcitabine and vinorelbine to determine its effect on response rate and survival of patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: Thirty-four response-evaluable patients, 24 with performance status (PS) 0-1 and 10 with a PS of 2, 30 with Stage IV, and 4 with Stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenously (first 15 patients) or 30 mg/m(2) intravenously (next 19 patients) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle, if on Day 15 neutrophils were > or = 1500/uL and platelets > or = 100,000/uL. If chemotherapy could not be administered on Day 15, then Day 22 became Day 1 of the next cycle. RESULTS: When vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) was given with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), 11 patients received 4-week cycles, 3 patients 3-week cycles, and 1 patient both 3- and 4-week cycles. With vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), 7 patients received 4-week cycles, 2 patients 3-week cycles, and 10 patients both 3- and 4-week cycles. The partial response rate for 34 patients was 53% (18 patients). Median survival (MS) was 11.1 months, and 1-year survival 50% (17 patients). Patients with PS 0+1 had a MS of 17.5 months compared with patients with PS 2, who had MS of 3.3 months. Patients < 70 years of age had a MS of 18 months, and those >/= 70 years had a MS of 5.5 months. CONCLUSION: This flexible schedule with gemcitabine and vinorelbine enabled optimal dose delivery and suggested excellent efficacy but less toxicity than treatment with platinum regimens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".