Reasons for Palliative Treatments in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: What Contribution Is Made by Time-Dependent Changes in Tumour or Patient Status?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stage iii lung cancer is the most advanced stage of lung cancer for which the potential of curative treatment is often discussed. However, a large proportion of patients are treated with palliative intent. An understanding of the time-dependent and -independent factors contributing to the choice of palliative-intent treatment is needed to help optimize patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of patients with stage iii non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) newly diagnosed between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2012 at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario collected data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics, tumour characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 237 patients with stage iii nsclc included in the study, 130 were not treated with radical or curative intent (55%). Major time-independent variables cited for palliative-intent treatment included extreme age (5%), comorbidity (27%), patient choice (5%), and poor lung function (5%). Time-dependent variables included tumour progression on imaging (15%), weight loss (33%), performance status (32%), and the occurrence of a major complication such as hemoptysis, lung collapse, or pulmonary embolism (7%). A significant number of patients (20%) experienced a decline in performance status-to 2, 3, or 4 from 0 or 1-over the course of the diagnostic journey, and 12% experienced a transition from no weight loss to more than 10% weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients receive palliative therapy for stage iii nsclc because of changes that occur during the diagnostic journey. Shortening or altering that pathway to avoid tumour growth or patient deterioration during care could allow for more patients to be treated with curative intent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".