MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321330838 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2012-736

Abstract 736: RTOG 0320:A phase III trial comparing whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone versus WBRT with temozolomide (TMZ) or erlotinib for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 1-3 brain metastases

2012· article· en· W2321330838 on OpenAlexaff
Paul W. Sperduto, Meihua Wang, H. Ian Robins, Michael C. Schell, Maria Werner‐Wasik, Ritsuko Komaki, Luís Souhami, Mark K. Buyyounouski fccc.edu, Deepak Khuntia, William F. Demas, Sunjay Shah, Lucien Nedzi, Gad A. Perry, John H. Suh, Minesh P. Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityOttawa HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErlotinibRadiosurgeryLung cancerTemozolomideInternal medicineOncologyClinical endpointConcomitantRadiation therapyHazard ratioCancerRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: A previous phase III RTOG study subset analysis demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with the addition of SRS to WBRT in NSCLC patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases. As both TMZ and erlotinib are known to cross the blood brain barrier (potentially providing radiosensitization), and have documented activity in NSCLC, a phase III study was designed to test whether either of these drugs would improve outcome of WBRT/SRS. Methods: NSCLC patients (n=126) with 1-3 brain metastases were randomized (10/2005 to 8/2009; study closed prematurely due to slow accrual) to receive WBRT (2.5 Gy x 15 to 37.5Gy) + SRS alone, vs. WBRT/SRS with TMZ (75mg/m2/D x 21) or erlotinib (150mg/D). Erlotinib or TMZ (150-200 mg/m2/D x 5/mo) could be given in the drug arms post-WBRT/SRS at the discretion of the investigator. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Arms were stratified by RTOG recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class and balanced for prognostic variables including the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) score. Neither the addition of erlotinib nor TMZ to WBRT/SRS resulted in an improvement in OS, or time to CNS progression compared to WBRT/SRS alone. Patients in the WBRT/SRS arm had longer MST (Median Survival Time) (13.4 mo, 95% CI = 6.5-20.8 mo.) compared to the WBRT+SRS+ erlotinib (6.1 mo, 95% CI = 3.6-12.1 mo)[Hazard ratio (≥2 / α1) and 95% CI; 1.47 (0.92 to 2.36)], or TMZ (6.3 mo, 95% CI= 3.4-10.1 mo.) [Hazard ratio (β3 / α1) and 95% CI; 1.43 (0.89 to 2.31)]. This surprising result was not related to excess toxicity. In fact, patients experiencing grade 3+ Adverse Events (AE) appear to have longer OS than those patients without grade 3+ AE for both drug arms. The WBRT/SRS arm had significantly less deterioration in performance status at 6 mo. There were no significant differences between arms for steroid dependence at 6 mo, or causes of death. Conclusion: The addition of either TMZ or erlotinib to WBRT/SRS in this unselected population of NSCLC patients with 1-3 brain metastases provided no clinical advantage. Treatment with WBRT/SRS alone appeared to result in superior outcome data (compared to the addition of TMZ or erlotinib) relative to OS in this limited data set. Detailed analysis to date provides no obvious explanation for these unexpected results. Support: RTOG grant U10 CA21661, and CCOP grant U10 CA37422 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 736. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-736

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.432
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207