A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor gefitinb in completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): NCIC CTG BR.19.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA7005 Background: In meta-analyses, platinum-based adjuvant (adj) chemotherapy (CT) in completely resected NSCLC increased cure rate by ∼5%. At BR.19 initiation, adj study results with third-generation agents were unavailable. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed activity in monotherapy trials. We report a trial of adj gefitinib versus placebo after complete resection of NSCLC. Methods: Patients (pts) with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC were stratified by sex, stage, histology, post-op radiation, and after Jan 2003, adj CT. Pts were randomized to gefitinib 250 mg or placebo daily x 2 years. Study endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), toxicity, preplanned correlative studies. Study closed prematurely in Apr. 2005. Trial committee and NCIC CTG staff remained blinded to study drug. Results: 503 pts randomized (Sep 2002-Apr 2005); median age 67, males 54%, PS 0 54%; stage IB 49%, II 38%, III 13%; adenocarcinoma 59%, squamous 28%; ever smokers 89%; adj CT 17%; lobectomy 82%. Commonest grade 3/4 toxicities = fatigue 5%, rash 4% and diarrhea 5%. grade 3+ pneumonitis in 7 (1.4%) pts and led to death in 1. Median follow-up is 4.7 yrs; median treatment time is 4.8 mos. For gefitinib versus placebo, median DFS is 4.2 yrs versus not yet reached (NYR) HR1.22 (95% C.I. 0.93-1.61), p=0.15 and median OS 5.1 yrs versus NYR HR 1.24 (95% C.I. 0.94-1.64), p=0.14. In multivariate analysis, tumor size >4cm was predictive of poor DFS (p<0.0001) and never smoking for better OS with gefitinib (p=0.02). Results for KRAS and EGFR copy are available on 350 and 348 pts respectively. KRAS mutations were neither prognostic HR 1.12 (95% C.I. 0.67-1.86), p=0.66 nor predictive of gefitinib benefit (p = 0.16) on OS. EGFRcopy whether low/high polysomy or amplification was neither prognostic (p=0.77) nor predictive of OS benefit from gefitinib. Conclusions: Adjuvant gefitinib after complete resection of early stage NSCLC did not confer DFS or OS advantage in overall population. KRAS and EGFR copy were neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from gefitinib. EGFR mutational analysis will be presented. [Table: see text]
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".