MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients: An analysis of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and Intergroup BR.10

2006· article· en· W2210721194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carmela Pepe, Baktiar Hasan, T. Winton, Lesley Seymour, Joseph L. Pater, Robert B. Livingston, David H. Johnson, James R. Rigas, Keyue Ding, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVinorelbineChemotherapyInternal medicineToxicityCisplatinAdjuvantYoung adultUnivariate analysisCancerGastroenterologyMultivariate analysisOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7009 Background: Recent trials have shown significant survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of NSCLC. Whether elderly patients tolerate platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy and derive the same survival advantage is unknown. This retrospective study evaluated the influence of age on survival, chemotherapy delivery and toxicity in NCIC CTG BR.10. Methods: Pretreatment characteristics and survival benefit from treatment were compared for patients ≤65 & >65. Chemotherapy delivery and toxicity were compared for 213 treated patients. Results: There were 327 young and 155 elderly patients. Baseline prognostic factors by age were similar with the exception of histology (adeno 58% young, 43% elderly; squamous 32% young, 49% elderly; p=0.001) and PS (PS 0 53% young, 41% elderly; p=0.01). Overall survival by age showed a trend favoring the young in univariate (HR 0.77, CI 0.58–1.04, p=0.084) and multivariate analyses (HR 0.75, CI 0.56–1.01, p=0.059). Patients >75 years had significantly shorter survival than those aged 66–74 (HR 1.95, CI 1.11–3.41, p=0.02). Overall survival for patients >65 was significantly better with chemotherapy v observation (HR 0.61, CI 0.38–0.98, p=0.04). Chemotherapy administration and toxicity were evaluated in 63 elderly and 150 young patients. Mean dose intensities of vinorelbine (V) and cisplatin (C) were 13.2 and 18.0 in the young and 9.9 and 14.1 in the elderly (V p=0.0004; C p=0.001). The elderly received significantly fewer doses of V (p=0.014) and C (p=0.006). Fewer elderly patients completed treatment and more refused treatment compared to the young (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in toxicities, G-CSF use or hospitalization by age group, except for myalgias and mood alteration (more frequent among the young). Six of 126 deaths (4.8%) in the young were from non-malignant causes v 12 of 71 (16.9%) in the elderly (p=0.008). Conclusions: In spite of receiving less chemotherapy than young patients, adjuvant chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients aged >65 with acceptable toxicity. Adjuvant chemotherapy should not be withheld from elderly patients, although patients >75 years of age require further study. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207