Erlotinib for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Elderly: An Analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21 established erlotinib as a standard of care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of first- or second-line chemotherapy. The current study analyzes the influence of age on outcomes in BR.21. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BR.21 was a double-blind phase III trial that randomly assigned 731 patients to erlotinib 150 mg daily or placebo. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), response, quality of life (QOL), drug exposure, and toxicity, which are analyzed in this retrospective study by the following two age groups: >or= 70 years (elderly) or less than 70 years (young). RESULTS: There were 163 elderly patients (112 on erlotinib, 51 on placebo) and 568 young patients (376 on erlotinib, 192 on placebo). There was no significant difference between age groups randomly assigned to erlotinib or placebo in progression-free survival (elderly: 3.0 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.90; P = .009; young: 2.1 v 1.8 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.76; P < .0001; interaction, P = .77) or OS (elderly: 7.6 v 5.0 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.34; P = .67; young: 6.4 v 4.7 months; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = .0014; interaction, P = .31). Response rates were similar between age groups. Elderly patients, compared with young patients, had significantly more overall and severe (grade 3 and 4) toxicity (35% v 18%; P < .001), were more likely to discontinue treatment as a result of treatment-related toxicity (12% v 3%; P < .0001), and had lower relative dose-intensity (64% v 82% received > 90% planned dose; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients treated with erlotinib gain similar survival and QOL benefits as younger patients but experience greater toxicity.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".