Vinorelbine plus Cisplatin vs. Observation in Resected Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We undertook to determine whether adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin prolongs overall survival among patients with completely resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB or stage II non-small-cell lung cancer to vinorelbine plus cisplatin or to observation. The primary end point was overall survival; principal secondary end points were recurrence-free survival and the toxicity and safety of the regimen. RESULTS: A total of 482 patients underwent randomization to vinorelbine plus cisplatin (242 patients) or observation (240); 45 percent of the patients had pathological stage IB disease and 55 percent had stage II, and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. In both groups, the median age was 61 years, 65 percent were men, and 53 percent had adenocarcinomas. Chemotherapy caused neutropenia in 88 percent of patients (including grade 3 febrile neutropenia in 7 percent) and death from toxic effects in two patients (0.8 percent). Nonhematologic toxic effects of chemotherapy were fatigue (81 percent of patients), nausea (80 percent), anorexia (55 percent), vomiting (48 percent), neuropathy (48 percent), and constipation (47 percent), but severe (grade 3 or greater) toxic effects were uncommon (<10 percent). Overall survival was significantly prolonged in the chemotherapy group as compared with the observation group (94 vs. 73 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; P=0.04), as was relapse-free survival (not reached vs. 46.7 months; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.60; P<0.001). Five-year survival rates were 69 percent and 54 percent, respectively (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin has an acceptable level of toxicity and prolongs disease-free and overall survival among patients with completely resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".