MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Afatinib (A) vs erlotinib (E) as second-line treatment of patients (pts) with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the LUX-Lung 8 Phase III global trial.

2015· article· en· W2315566794 on OpenAlexaff
Shirish M. Gadgeel, Manuel Cobo, Enriqueta Felip, Jean‐Charles Soria, Ki Hyeong Lee, Shun Lü, Vassilis Georgoulias, Andrea Fülöp, Erdem Göker, Konstantinos N. Syrigos, Alessandro Morabito, Hasan Şenol Çoşkun, Salih Zeki Güçlü, Wěi Li, Sanjay Popat, Andrea Ardizzoni, Juliane Lungershausen, Bushi Wang, Vikram K. Chand, Glenwood Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAfatinibLung cancerErlotinibChemotherapyGastroenterologySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8100 Background: A is an irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown clinical activity in pts with SCC of the head/neck and lung. The LUX-Lung 8 Phase III global trial compared A and E in pts with SCC of the lung following failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Between Mar 2012 and Jan 2014, 795 stage IIIB/IV SCC pts were randomized 1:1 to receive A (40 mg/day) or E (150 mg/day) until progression. The primary endpoint of PFS, assessed after 414 events, was significantly higher for A than E (median: 2.4 vs 1.9 months; HR [95% CI]: 0.82 [0.68–1.00]; p = 0.04). PRO analyses of the PFS dataset are presented here. Updated PRO analysis of the OS dataset (to be undertaken after 632 deaths) will be available at the meeting. Methods: PROs were collected every 28 days until progression using the EORTC QLQ-C30/LC13 questionnaires. Percentage of pts improved on therapy, time-to-deterioration (TTD) and changes over time were analyzed for the pre-specified SCC symptoms: cough, dyspnea, and pain. Results: Improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL was significantly greater with A than E (36.4 vs 27.1% pts; p = 0.026). More pts had an improvement in cough with A vs E (43.6 vs 32.6%; p = 0.010). The proportion of pts with improvements in dyspnea and pain were 49.4 vs 44.8% and 37.5 vs 37.5% with A and E, respectively. There were no significant differences in TTD of symptoms between treatment groups. However, trends favoring A were reported for dyspnea (HR [95% CI]: 0.82 [0.66–1.01]), fatigue (HR [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.73–1.09]), physical (HR [95% CI]: 0.81 [0.64–1.02]), and role (HR [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.67–1.03]) functioning. Changes in mean scores over time significantly favored A vs E for cough (p = 0.007), dyspnea (p = 0.021), and pain (p = 0.024), including chest pain, as well as fatigue (p = 0.006) and role (p = 0.001)/physical (0.024) functioning. Conclusions: Compared to E, A improved SCC symptoms, SCC symptoms over time, and overall GHS/QoL. PRO analyses of LUX-Lung 8 complement the significant improvement observed in PFS with second-line A vs E in pts with SCC of the lung. Clinical trial information: NCT01523587.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→