Do elderly and young patients derive similar relative survival benefits from novel oncology drugs? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10029 Background: Elderly patients are commonly believed to derive less benefit from cancer drugs, even if they fulfil clinical trial eligibility. We aim to examine if novel oncology drugs provide differential treatment outcomes for elderly and young patients on clinical trials. Methods: A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in novel oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and 2015 was conducted. Studies reporting age-based subgroup analyses for overall or progression free survival (OS/PFS), were considered. Independent reviewers extracted survival hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for age-based subgroups. Meta-analyses based on an inverse variance random effects model were performed to examine patient subgroups < 65 and ≥ 65 years separately, and pooled HRs were compared to examine if differences in relative survival benefits existed between patient subgroups. Sensitivity analyses were conducted specific to cancer type, primary endpoint, and the type of systemic treatment. Results: Eighty-five RCTs, including 55,512 patients, reported age-based survival outcomes and were included. One study reported age-based toxicity and no studies age-based quality of life results. Pooled HRs [95% CIs] for patients < 65 and ≥ 65 years were 0.60 [0.56-0.65] and 0.66 [0.61-0.72], respectively with no difference between the two subgroups ( P= 0.08). All sensitivity analyses revealed similar results. Conclusions: Our results suggest that elderly and young patients derive similar relative survival benefits from novel oncology drugs. In settings where there is no other direct high-level evidence of elderly patients deriving less benefit than younger patients, it is reasonable to consider offering novel oncology drugs to elderly patients who fulfil trial eligibility. There is, however, a need to report age-based toxicity and quality of life results to support patient discussions regarding the balance of treatment benefit and harm, to encourage informed individualized decision-making.
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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".