MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Smoking history is more predictive of survival benefit from erlotinib for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than EGFR expression

2005· article· en· W2274356777 on OpenAlexaff
Gary M. Clark, Denni M. Zborowski, P. Santabárbara, Keyue Ding, M. Whitehead, Lesley Seymour, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErlotinibInternal medicineOncologyLung cancerHazard ratioRegimenUnivariate analysisPlaceboPerformance statusProportional hazards modelMultivariate analysisCancerEpidermal growth factor receptorPathologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7033 Background: Erlotinib (E, [Tarceva]) is an orally available, reversible inhibitor of the HER1/EGFR tyrosine kinase that has recently been approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. A survival advantage of E compared to placebo (P) was demonstrated in a randomized, double-blind study of 731 patients with NSCLC (Shepherd et al, Proc ASCO, 2004, Abstract 7022). In this study, submission of tumor samples for determination of EGFR expression status by immunohistochemistry (DAKO EGFR pharmDx™ kit) was optional and smoking status was collected retrospectively prior to unblinding. The results of the study showed an overall survival benefit from E. Subset analyses indicated that E was particularly effective in pts with EGFR+ tumors and in pts who had never smoked. However, controversy exists about which of these characteristics is most important, and how their interaction might impact on the efficacy of E. Methods: To address these questions, univariate and multivariate analyses of survival of the 311 pts with available EGFR status and known smoking history were performed using main effects and interactions with treatment. Results: The univariate hazard ratio (HR) of death for E relative to P was 0.74, p=0.020, for all pts in this subset. Smoking history demonstrated a marginally significant interaction with treatment, p=0.054. The HRs were 0.42 among never smokers and 0.87 for current or ex-smokers, indicating that E was beneficial in both subsets, but more effective in pts who had never smoked. The interaction between EGFR status and treatment was not significant in either univariate (p=0.199) or multivariate (p=0.127) analyses; the HRs were 0.65 for EGFR+ and 0.93 for EGFR- pts. Pts with EGFR+ tumors who never smoked had the best survival benefit from E relative to P, HR=0.28, p=0.0007. Conclusions: In summary, these data confirm a benefit from E within different subsets of pts. Never smokers and pts with EGFR+ tumors experience an enhanced benefit from E compared to P, however, smoking history is more predictive of survival than EGFR expression in pts with NSCLC treated with E. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration OSI OSI OSI

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207