The influence of sex and histology on outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of five randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical series have indicated that the positive prognostic effect of female sex is limited to patients with adenocarcinoma. We carried out a retrospective analysis to investigate the role of sex and histology on efficacy, toxicity, and dose delivery after chemotherapy. PATIENT AND METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from five randomized, phase III, advanced NSCLC chemotherapy trials. Primary outcomes were response rate, overall survival (OS), toxicity, and dose delivery. A secondary analysis examined survival by sex in histological subgroups. RESULTS: Of 2349 patients, 34% were women. Women had a higher response rate to chemotherapy (42% versus 40%, P = 0.01) and longer survival than men (median OS 9.6 versus 8.6 months, P = 0.002). The difference in OS remained after adjusting for age, stage, performance status, and histology (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.92, P = 0.0005). Upon further examination, longer survival in women was only seen in patients with adenocarcinoma (test for interaction P = 0.006). There were no differences in hematological toxicity or transfusions. Women experienced more grade 3-4 emesis than men (P < 0.0001) and more dose delays (P = 0.02) or dose reductions (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The positive prognostic effect among women is confirmed in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy but appears confined to those with adenocarcinoma histology.
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 | 0.031 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".