MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2440371401 · doi:10.1111/ajco.12513

An East Asian subgroup analysis of PROCLAIM, a phase III trial of pemetrexed and cisplatin or etoposide and cisplatin plus thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer

2016· article· en· W2440371401 on OpenAlexaff
Lühua Wang, Yi‐Long Wu, Shun Lü, Lei Deng, Myung‐Ju Ahn, Feng‐Ming Hsu, Neill Iscoe, Anwar Hossain, Tarun Puri, Pinghai Zhang, Mauro Orlando

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPemetrexedMedicineCisplatinHazard ratioEtoposideInternal medicineOncologyCarboplatinChemotherapyConfidence intervalSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: PROCLAIM, a phase III trial of patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer comparing concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed, did not meet its primary endpoint of superior overall survival versus etoposide-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy followed by a consolidation platinum doublet of choice. The results from an East Asian subgroup analysis are presented here. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed for all patients randomized from China (n = 61), Taiwan (n = 25), and Korea (n = 11). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms for East Asian patients. In the 97 randomized East Asian patients, median overall survival was 26.8 months for the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 36.3 months for the etoposide-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio: 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.70-2.14; P = 0.469). Median progression-free survival was 10.0 months for the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 7.6 months for the etoposide-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.54; P = 0.890). The objective response rate was 47.7% in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 34.0% in the etoposide-cisplatin arm (P = 0.167). In the 90 treated East Asian patients, the overall incidence of drug-related grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly lower in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm versus the etoposide-cisplatin arm (61.4% vs 91.3%; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For East Asian patients, pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with thoracic radiation therapy, followed by consolidation pemetrexed, did not improve overall survival but did have a good safety profile with a trend for improved progression-free survival and objective response rate compared to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207