MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Androgen deprivation therapy and survival in patients with lung cancer.

2013· article· en· W2642497087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig Harlos, Marshall Pitz, Grace Musto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyInternal medicineCancerOncologyCancer registryProportional hazards modelPopulationFinasterideHazard ratioEpidemiologyProstate cancerGynecologyProstateConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1597 Background: The epidemiology of lung cancer differs between men and women. There exists significant evidence suggesting estrogens influence the pathophysiology of lung cancer, however the role of androgens remains unclear. This study was performed to determine if exposure to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has an effect on survival in male patients (pts) diagnosed with lung cancer. Methods: Using the population-based Manitoba Cancer Registry and Manitoba Health Administrative Databases, all pts diagnosed with lung cancer from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010 were identified. Information from the Drug Program Information Network (DPIN) and the Aria electronic record at CancerCare Manitoba were used to determine prescriptions filled for anti-androgens, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors and GnRH agonists as a measure of exposure (defined as having filled at least 2 prescriptions and/or bilateral orchiectomy). Multivariable analysis with Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to compare survival. Results: A total of 3018 men with lung cancer were identified between 2004 and 2010. Of these, 339 (10%) were identified as having used a form of ADT. The majority of pts received 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (85%), the most common being finasteride (80% of total). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients who received ADT prior to the diagnosis of lung cancer had no statistically significant difference in survival (HR: 0.97 p=0.69) compared to those who did not. Patients exposed to ADT after their diagnosis were found to have a significantly better survival than those not exposed (HR 0.36 p=0.0007). This effect was also seen in those who received ADT before and after diagnosis (HR 0.53 p<0.0001). Conclusions: In male pts diagnosed with lung cancer, exposure to ADT is associated with significantly better survival when compared with no exposure. This effect is only seen when some or all of the exposure has occurred after the diagnosis of lung cancer. This study supports the hypothesis that the androgen pathway plays a role in lung cancer pathophysiology, and that androgen deprivation may improve prognosis

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207