MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does blood sugar impact on metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) outcome?

2017· article· en· W2892013444 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Gravel, Normand Blais, Mustapha Tehfé, Marie Florescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineMetastasisComorbidityLung cancerOncologyPopulationCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20579 Background: Diabetes is a frequent diagnostic (9.3%) in general Western population, and because of its complications, becomes a comorbidity in NSCLC patients that could impact on prognostic. Impact of diabetes on NSCLC prognosis is unknown but the majority of patients fear eating desserts because feeding mostly the NSCLC tumor cells. Methods: Using our SARDO database and hospital files, we retrospectively reviewed 548 patients with metastatic NSCLC diagnosed and treated in our University hospital between 2006 and 2015. Uncontrolled diabetes was established when Hb1Ac > 7% or with more than 2 hospital glycemia over 11 mmol/L. Results: Amongst 418 metastatic NSCLC patients, 294pts (70%) had synchronous metastasis at diagnostic and 117pts (30%) have metachronous metastasis. As expected metachronous metastasis patients had a better survival (mOS 25mo) than synchronous metastasis (mOS 6mo). Then, we divided our patients in 4 subgroups: 1) Patients with diagnosed and uncontrolled diabetes (n = 78); 2) Patients with high glycemia but not previously diabetes diagnostic (n = 19); 3) Patients with controlled diagnosed diabetes (n = 59); 4) Control patients with normal glycemias or HBA1c (n = 262). Some tumor stage and demographic disparities were seen between the 4 groups but we controlled for them. In upfront metastatic NSCLC patients, mOS was 4.0 months for group 1, 4.0 months for group 2, 4.0 months for group 3 and 7.0 months for our control group, not statistically different, which is lower than literature but expected for this unselected population treated before 2015. In metachronous patients, group 1 mOS was 21mo, group 2 was 58mo, group 3 was 30mo and mOS was 23mo for control patients, with no statistically difference between groups. Women had a better mOS 8 mo compared to 4 mo in men (p = 0,003) independently of diabetes or sugar status. Conclusions: This retrospective data is reassuring regarding patients blood glycemia during the metastatic lung cancer treatment. Even in a long term metachronous disease perspective, blood sugar or diabetes diagnostic did not seem to influence the outcome. However, these data should be validated in a prospective study that could acknowledge if blood sugar control could improve lung cancer outcome.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207