MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Updated survival analysis of JBR.10: A randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/cisplatin versus observation in completely resected stage IB and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2009· article· en· W2277339257 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Vincent, Charles Butts, Lesley Seymour, Keyue Ding, Barbara Graham, Philip Twumasi‐Ankrah, David R. Gandara, Joan H. Schiller, M. Green, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVinorelbineInternal medicineHazard ratioLog-rank testRandomizationCisplatinRandomized controlled trialLung cancerOncologyStage (stratigraphy)ChemotherapySurvival analysisAdjuvant therapySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7501 Background: JBR.10 was one of a number of phase III trials that established adjuvant cisplatin based chemotherapy as a recommended treatment in completely resected NSCLC . Long-term follow-up of these trials is important to document persistent benefit and potential late toxicities of adjuvant therapy. We report the updated survival data for JBR.10 with more than 9 years median follow up. Methods: Patients with completely resected stage IB (T2N0) or II (T1–2N1) NSCLC were randomized to receive 4 cycles of vinorelbine/cisplatin or observation.. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for overall (OS) and disease specific survival (DSS). Log-rank test was used to compare survival distribution and to test cause specific hazard. For the competing risk analysis, the Gray test was used to test the difference in cause specific incidences. All efficacy analyses were done on an ITT basis. Results: 482 patients were randomized. Data cut-off for this update was July 2008. Median follow-up is 9.3 years (3.2–13.8 y). 12 patients were lost to follow up, a median 4.9 years from randomization (1.5–12 years). 271 deaths have occurred, 73% due to lung cancer or its treatment. Survival analysis continues to show a benefit for chemotherapy: HR .78 (CI .61-.99, p=.04). The benefit appears to be confined to N1 patients: median OS 6.8 y versus 3.6 y, HR .68 (CI .5-.92, p=.01). N0 patients did not appear to benefit: HR 1.03 (CI .7–1.52, p=.87). Chemotherapy significantly prolonged DSS, HR.73 (CI .55-.97, p=.03) Competing risk analysis showed observation to be associated with significantly higher risk of death from lung cancer (p=.02) with no difference in incidences of death from other causes between arms (p=.62). Conclusions: Prolonged follow-up of patients in the JBR.10 trial continues to show a benefit in survival for adjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit appears to be confined to N1 patients. There was no increase in death from other causes in the chemotherapy arm. [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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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