MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of crizotinib on patient-reported symptoms and quality of life (QOL) compared with single-agent chemotherapy in a phase III study of advanced <i>ALK</i>+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013· article· en· W2592854110 on OpenAlexaff
Vera Hirsh, Fiona Blackhall, Dong‐Wan Kim, Benjamin Besse, Hiroshi Nokihara, Ji‐Youn Han, Vanessa Tassell, Arlene Reisman, Shrividya Iyer, Alice T. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrizotinibMedicineLung cancerDocetaxelPemetrexedALK inhibitorInternal medicineClinical endpointChemotherapyOncologyQuality of life (healthcare)Performance statusRandomizationClinical trialCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8108 Background: PROFILE 1007 compared the efficacy and safety of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib (N=172) with that of standard-of-care chemotherapy (pemetrexed [PEM; N=99] or docetaxel [DOC; N=72]) in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The main objective of our present post-hoc analyses was to compare patient-reported outcomes in the crizotinib arm with those of the DOC and PEM subgroups in the chemotherapy arm. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, on day 1 of each cycle, and at the end of treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. Higher scores (range 0−100) indicate higher symptom severity or better functioning/QOL. Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as time from randomization to the earliest time with a ≥10-point increase from baseline for pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough and was compared between groups using an unstratified log-rank test. Repeated measures mixed-effects analyses were performed to compare change from baseline scores, with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. Results: Completion rates at baseline were ≥90% in each group and scores were well balanced. Crizotinib treatment was associated with a significantly longer TTD compared with PEM (median, 5.6 vs. 1.9 mo; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48−0.92; P=0.013) or DOC (median, 5.6 vs. 0.9 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.26−0.54; P<0.0001). A significantly greater improvement from baseline was observed with crizotinib compared with either the PEM or DOC subgroups for global QOL (P<0.01), cough (P<0.001), dyspnea (P<0.0001), pain in arm or shoulder (P<0.0001), pain in chest (P<0.0001), pain in other parts (P<0.01), fatigue (P<0.05), insomnia (P<0.05), and pain (P<0.0001). A significantly greater improvement was also observed with crizotinib compared with DOC for functioning (P<0.05), alopecia (P<0.0001), and hemoptysis (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Crizotinib treatment showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline in key patient-reported lung cancer symptoms and global QOL compared with DOC and PEM, in addition to improved efficacy previously reported. Clinical trial information: NCT00932893.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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