Tumor Cavitation: Impact on Objective Response Evaluation in Trials of Angiogenesis Inhibitors in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We have observed cavitation of lesions in clinical trials of an angiogenesis inhibitor combined with chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that cavitation might alter response assessment in such clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective radiologic review of patients with NSCLC enrolled onto three National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) trials of platinum-based chemotherapy with or without a small-molecule angiogenesis inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor [VEGFRI]). Response was assessed both by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines and a novel alternate method in which the longest diameter of any cavity was subtracted from the overall longest diameter of that lesion to measure target lesions. Rates of cavitation were documented. RESULTS: Marked cavitation of pulmonary lesions was seen in 24% of 33 patients treated with VEGFRI combined with platinum-based chemotherapy but in none of 18 patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Use of the alternate method for response assessment resulted in an alteration of response assessment, time to best response, duration of response, and time of disease progression in a minority of patients compared with RECIST. CONCLUSION: Cavitation of target and nontarget lesions is common in NSCLC patients treated with VEGFRIs and platinum-based chemotherapy. Impact on response and time to event outcomes occurred but seems to be less common. Response assessment might be improved by incorporating cavitation into volume assessment for target lesions, potentially altering outcomes of key efficacy parameters in clinical trials. This should be prospectively assessed in clinical trials of angiogenesis inhibitors.
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 | 0.121 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".