Effectiveness of adjuvant carboplatin-based chemotherapy compared to cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and vinorelbine given intravenously is a well-established adjuvant chemotherapy regimen after surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer. However, few validated alternatives exist when cisplatin is not indicated or tolerated. Carboplatin is frequently used in this setting. We evaluated the 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival and toxicity in patients treated for stage IB to IIIB resected non-small cell lung cancer receiving adjuvant carboplatin-based chemotherapy compared to cisplatin in association with vinorelbine. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study of patients having received adjuvant chemotherapy between January 2004 and December 2013 at the oncology clinic at Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec (Canada). Three sub-groups, cisplatin/vinorelbine, carboplatin/vinorelbine and the substitution of cisplatin/vinorelbine for carboplatin/vinorelbine (cisplatin/vinorelbine/carboplatin/vinorelbine), were studied during treatment. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven patients were included in this study. The median PFS was not significantly different, with 50.4 months for cisplatin/vinorelbine, 57.3 months for cisplatin/vinorelbine/carboplatin/vinorelbine and not yet achieved for the carboplatin/vinorelbine group ( p = 0.80). Overall survival also did not differ significantly between the three groups. The 5-year overall survival rates were 66% in cisplatin/vinorelbine group, 55% in carboplatin/vinorelbine group and 70% in cisplatin/vinorelbine/carboplatin/vinorelbine group ( p = 0, 95). No differences were noted between groups concerning high-grade hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness and hematologic toxicity are comparable between cisplat in and carboplatin in the adjuvant treatment of resected non-small cell lung cancer, the results obtained corroborate the practice used at our oncology clinic. Nevertheless, more prospective studies would be needed to confirm these results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".