MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Less toxic chemotherapy on the uptake of all lines of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A 10-year retrospective population-based review.

2013· article· en· W2600627787 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Ho, Katherine Ramsden, Nevin Murray, Sophie Sun, Barbara Melosky, Janessa Laskin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePemetrexedErlotinibDocetaxelLung cancerChemotherapyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyPopulationOncologyCancerSurgeryCisplatinEpidermal growth factor receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19131 Background: The platinum doublet is standard first-line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Over the past decade, well-tolerated second-line therapies have been approved, including erlotinib and pemetrexed. We hypothesize that the introduction of less-toxic chemotherapy has increased treatment of advanced NSCLC, resulting in improved survival. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency provides cancer care to a population of 4.5 million. A retrospective review was conducted of all referred stage IIIB/IV patients in four 1-yr time cohorts; C1 baseline (1998) and 6 months after the provincial approval of C2 docetaxel (2001), C3 erlotinib (2006) and C4 pemetrexed (2007). Results: 2,623 patients were referred and 720 had systemic therapy. Characteristics: M/F 55%/45%, median age 67 (33-101), ECOG <=1/>=2/unknown 33%/56%/11%, never/former/current/unknown smoker 9%/35%/36%/20%, squam/nonsquam/NOS 18%/41%/41%. More patients received first-line chemotherapy over time; 16%, 23%, 34%, 33% C1-4 respectively. In C1 to C4 uptake of second line (21%, 27%, 38%, 55%) and third line (10%, 10% 14%, 18%) increased. In C1 the most common first-line doublet was cis/vino (70%) and in C4, cis/gem (45%). Second-line doce was frequently used in C2 (51%) but usage decreased in C4 to 7% vs. erlo 50% and pem 26%. In the >=70 group (n=1,118), first-line usage increased from C1 9% to C4 19% and second-line in the C2 (doce) 4% to C4 (erlo+pem avail) 56%. The increased use of systemic therapy was associated with improved survival in all patients: C1 4.56 m vs C4 4.98 m (p=0.004) and treated patients; C1 9.48 m vs C4 12.07 m (p=0.014) and the >= 70 group; C1 9.7 m vs C4 12.5 m (p=0.07). Conclusions: This population-based data set represents the trend of treatments over time in a large geographical area, including community and tertiary care cancer treatment sites. The introduction of less-toxic systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC resulted in an increased proportion of patients treated with first-line chemotherapy and an even greater increase in second-/third-line treatment. This trend was particularly evident in the elderly. Associated with this was a significant improvement in overall survival for all subsets.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.456
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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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