MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival impact of aggressive treatment on patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2017· article· en· W2754266983 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Gauvin, Normand Blais, Mustapha Tehfé, Marie Florescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Single CenterOncologyCancerPerformance statusLungGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20669 Background: The new 2016lung cancer classification differentiates oligometastatic (M1b) better prognostic from plurimetastatic (M1c) disease. A prospective study presented at 2016 ASCO showed improved PFS in patients with oligometastatic brain disease treated aggressively compared to a more palliative treatment but OS data is pending. Methods: This study is a single-center retrospective study including 643 patients with metastatic lung cancer diagnosed in an University center (CHUM) from 2005-2015 and followed more than 6 months (median follow up 13.3mo) . Only 67 patients (10.4%) were found to have synchronous oligometastatic disease at diagnosis. Results: Amongst the 67 patients, the localization of metastatic disease was as follows: 74% brain (n = 50), 9% adrenal gland (n = 6), 7% contralateral pulmonary lobe (n = 5), 6% bone (n = 4) and 3% liver (n = 2). 29 patients received radical treatment to primary and metastatic site (group A) and 36 patients received non-aggressive treatments (group B). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic and histological characteristics. The radical treatment group A had a mOS of 26mo and a mPFS of 12.8m compared to mOS of 5mo (p = 0.0001) and mPFS of 4.8mo (p = 0.010) for group B. This difference was observed when stratifying according to stage of primary lung disease (stage I mOS 42mo vs 16mo, stage II mOS 34mo vs 6mo and stage III mOS 22mo vs 4mo) and according to to oligometastatic site. Interestingly, addressing aggressively the primary lung cancer improved median survival even when the oligometastasis was not resected (26mo v and 24mo respectively), but not when oligometastasis only was resected and primary was treated palliatively (5mo vs 3 mo). Adjuvant chemotherapy given after radical treatment did not improve mPFS or mOS (12.83 vs12.47 months, p = 0.860). Conclusions: Radical treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC in this unselected population improved mPFS and mOS compared to other treatment strategies. As overall survival data of the prospective trial presented at 2016 ASCO meeting is pending, the more radical approach should be emphasized when patients present with oligometastatic lung cancer disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.402 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→