Platinum-Based Versus Non-Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Published Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was performed to compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Randomized phase II and III clinical trials comparing first-line palliative platinum-based chemotherapy with the same regimen without platinum or with platinum replaced by a nonplatinum agent were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cancerlit, and hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists. Response rates, 1-year survival, and toxicity were analyzed. Subgroups of trials using third-generation agents were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-seven assessable trials were identified including 7,633 patients. A 62% increase in the odds ratio (OR) for response was attributable to platinum-based therapy (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 1.8; P < .0001). The 1-year survival rate was increased by 5% with platinum-based regimens (34% v 29%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.35; P = .0003). No statistically significant increase in 1-year survival was found when platinum therapies were compared to third-generation-based combination regimens (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.28; P = .17). The toxicity of platinum-based regimens was significantly higher for hematologic toxicity, nephrotoxicity, and nausea and vomiting, but not for neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia rate, or toxic death rate. CONCLUSION: Response is significantly higher with platinum-containing regimens. One-year survival was not significantly prolonged when platinum-based therapies were compared with third-generation-based combination regimens. Toxicity is generally higher for platinum-based regimens.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".