Quality-of-Life Outcomes for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From a Randomized Trial, JBR.10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is now the standard of care, but there is little information regarding its impact on quality of life (QOL). We report the QOL results of JBR.10, a North American, intergroup, randomized trial of adjuvant cisplatin and vinorelbine compared with observation in patients who have completely resected, stages IB to II NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QOL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and a trial-specific checklist at baseline and at weeks 5 and 9 for those who received chemotherapy and at follow-up months 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36. A 10-point change in QOL scores from baseline was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned on JBR.10. A total of 173 patients (82% of the expected) in the observation arm and 186 (85% of expected) in the chemotherapy arm completed baseline QOL assessments. The two groups were comparable, with low global QOL scores and significant symptom burden, especially pain and fatigue, after thoracotomy. Changes in QOL during chemotherapy were relatively modest; fatigue, nausea, and vomiting worsened, but there was a reduction in pain and no change in global QOL. Patients in the observation arm showed considerable improvements in QOL by 3 months. QOL, except for symptoms of sensory neuropathy and hearing loss, in those treated with chemotherapy returned to baseline by 9 months. CONCLUSION: The findings of this trial indicate that the negative effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on QOL appear to be temporary, and that improvements (with a return to baseline function) are likely in most patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".