MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790791873 · doi:10.3747/co.25.3723

Real-World Outcomes in Patients with Alk-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Crizotinib

2018· article· en· W2790791873 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kevin Davis, James A. Kaye, Elizabeth T. Masters, Shrividya Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrizotinibMedicineLung cancerInternal medicineOncologyAnaplastic lymphoma kinaseMedical recordALK inhibitorClinical trialRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Crizotinib has shown greater efficacy in clinical trials than chemotherapy in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but little information is available on its use and outcomes in real-world settings. We therefore assessed treatment patterns and outcomes in ALK+ NSCLC patients treated with crizotinib in regular clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective medical record review was conducted in North America for adults with ALK+ NSCLC treated with crizotinib as first- or later-line therapy for metastatic disease between 1 August 2011 and 31 March 2013 (for the United States) or 1 May 2012 and 31 March 2013 (for Canada). Crizotinib-related trial enrollees were excluded. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess treatment patterns and objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were descriptively analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Data were extracted for 212 patients in the United States (n = 147) and Canada (n = 65). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 58.9 (9.5) years, and 69% were male. Seventy-nine patients (37%) were deceased at record abstraction. Sixty-five percent (n = 137) initiated crizotinib as first-line therapy. Mean (SD) duration of crizotinib treatment was 8.7 (4.9) months. Objective response rate was 66% (69% for first-line recipients, 60% for second-/later-line). Median (95% CI) PFS and OS from crizotinib initiation were 9.5 (8.7, 10.1) and 23.4 (19.5, −) months, respectively. One- and two-year survival probabilities were 82% and 49%, respectively. One- and two-year survival probabilities were 82% and 49%, respectively. Conclusions: Outcomes for crizotinib recipients in this study align with previous trials, with ORR appearing more favourable in first-line recipients. Our findings indicate that crizotinib outcomes in clinical studies may translate to regular clinical practice.

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)0.009
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207