Induction chemoradiation therapy followed by surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) invading the thoracic inlet☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of induction therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) invading the thoracic inlet is unclear. We reviewed our experience with induction chemoradiation followed by surgical resection for NSCLC invading the thoracic inlet. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 44 consecutive patients with NSCLC invading the thoracic inlet, treated with induction chemoradiation (two cycles of cisplatin and etoposide concurrently with 45Gy of radiation) followed by surgical resection between 1996 and 2007. RESULTS: All patients underwent chest wall resection (1-5 ribs, mean 3) with resection of the first rib through an anterior (n=15), a posterior (n=18), or a combined approach (n=11). Lobectomy was performed in 40 cases (90%), pneumonectomy in two (5%), and wedge resection in two (5%). Resection of subclavian vessels or portions of vertebrae was performed in five (11%) and 15 (34%) patients, respectively. Hospital mortality was 5% (n=2). R0-resection was achieved in 39 patients (89%). On pathologic examination, 13 patients (30%) showed complete response (pCR) to induction therapy, and 15 (34%) showed minimal microscopic residual disease (90-99% tumor necrosis). The median follow-up was 2 years (range, 2 month-10 years) with an overall cumulative 5-year survival of 59%. Sixteen patients (36%) developed recurrence, which was local in five cases and distant in 11 patients. The 5-year survival in patients with pCR was 90%; 69% in those with minimal residual disease, and 12% in patients with no relevant response (p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of NSCLC invading the thoracic inlet can be performed safely after induction chemoradiation therapy. The response rate after induction therapy is a strong predictor of survival.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".