MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Afatinib (A) vs erlotinib (E) as second-line therapy of patients (pts) with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung following platinum-based chemotherapy: Overall survival (OS) analysis from the global phase III trial LUX-Lung 8 (LL8).

2015· article· en· W2474212125 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Charles Soria, Enriqueta Felip, Manuel Cobo, Shun Lü, Konstantinos N. Syrigos, Ki Hyeong Lee, Erdem Göker, Vassilis Georgoulias, Wěi Li, Dolores Isla, Salih Zeki Güçlü, Alessandro Morabito, Young Joo Min, Andrea Ardizzoni, Shirish M. Gadgeel, Bushi Wang, Vikram K. Chand, Glenwood Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAfatinibInternal medicineClinical endpointErlotinibLung cancerOncologyProgression-free survivalGefitinibChemotherapyGastroenterologyCancerRandomized controlled trialEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8002 Background: Treatment options for pts with advanced SCC of the lung progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. Overexpression of EGFR, ErbB receptors and the dysregulation of their downstream pathways are implicated in SCC pathobiology. Primary analysis of LL8 (2nd line A, an irreversible ErbB family blocker vs E, a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI; only TKI approved in this setting], in pts with SCC of the lung) showed significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) with A. OS and updated PFS are reported here. Methods: Pts with stage IIIB/IV disease were randomized 1:1 to receive A (40 mg/day) or E (150 mg/day) until disease progression. Primary endpoint: PFS; key secondary endpoint: OS. Other endpoints: objective response (ORR), disease control (DCR), patient reported outcomes and safety. 632 events and a sample size of 800 pts was needed to detect a HR of 0.8 with 80% power for OS. Results: OS was significantly better with A (n = 398) vs E (n = 397), with a 19% reduced risk of death (median 7.9 vs 6.8 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.95]; p = 0.008). Significant differences in OS were seen at 6 (63.6 vs 54.6%; p = 0.010), 12 (36.4 vs 28.2%; p = 0.016) and 18 (22.0 vs 14.4%; p = 0.013) mos. PFS (median 2.6 vs 1.9 mos; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69–0.96]; p = 0.010), ORR (5.5 vs 2.8%; p = 0.055) and DCR (50.5 vs 39.5%; p = 0.002) were all better for A vs E. More pts had improved global health status/quality of life (35.7 vs 28.3%; p = 0.041), cough (43.4 vs 35.2%; p = 0.029) and dyspnea (51.3 vs 44.1%; p = 0.061) with A vs E. Adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable (G ≥ 3 AEs: 57.1 and 57.5% for A vs E) with a higher incidence of drug-related G3/4 diarrhea (9.9/0.5 vs 2.3/0.3%), G3 stomatitis (4.1 vs 0%) with A and a higher incidence of G3 rash/acne with E (5.9 vs 10.4%). Preliminary data from FoundationOne analysis of tumor blocks will be shown. Conclusions: A significantly improved OS vs E in pts with SCC of the lung in a 2nd line setting. PFS and DCR were also significantly better. With a manageable AE profile, added QoL benefit, and symptom control seen in LL8, A should be preferred over E for these pts. 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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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