Comparison of toxicity and outcomes of concurrent radiotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel (PC) or cisplatin/etoposide (PE) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e18559 Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care for patients (pts) with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Although 60Gy of radiotherapy is accepted as the standard radiation dose, the concurrent chemotherapy regimen is idiosyncratic to the institution with PC generally reserved for older and less fit pts. We retrospectively reviewed outcomes and toxicity of two widely used regimens at our institution (Austin Health, Melbourne): weekly PC (Belani et al, 2005) versus (vs) PE given weeks 1 and 5 (SWOG 9019) each with concurrent chest radiotherapy. Methods: Charts from stage III NSCLC pts treated with radical dose CCRT between 2000-2011 were reviewed. Clinical data including demographics, toxicity, and response were reviewed. Results: A total of 83 (PC: 50, PE: 33) pts were treated. PC pts were older [median age (range) 70 year (44-83) vs 63 year (32-76); p=0.001]. Other characteristics were comparable in PC and PE groups (Table). Increased grade (gr) ≥3 neutropenia was seen with PE (39% vs 12%, p=0.008). Other gr ≥3 toxicities were similar including febrile neutropenia, esophagitis and pneumonitis. With a median follow up of 17.2 months (mo), no statistical difference in overall survival (OS) (median PC 21.3 mo vs PE 13.7 mo; p=0.690) and relapse free survival (median PC 12.0 mo vs PE 11.1 mo; p=0.934) were observed. In multivariate analysis, where treatment type and age were included in the model, only more advanced stage predicted poorer OS (p=0.045). Conclusions: PC was more likely to be used in elderly pts. Despite this, PC resulted in significantly less hematological toxicity but achieved similar survival outcomes compared to PE. PC is an acceptable CCRT regimen especially in older pts. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".