MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pooled analysis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) from four trials of necitumumab and chemotherapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2016· article· en· W2892143167 on OpenAlexaff
Kelvin Young, Luis Paz‐Ares, Nick Thatcher, David R. Spigel, Javad Shahidi, Victoria Soldatenkova, Gerrit Grau, Raffael Kurek, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyPemetrexedGemcitabineLung cancerChemotherapyCarboplatinProportional hazards modelRelative riskCisplatinConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20534 Background: Metastatic NSCLC is a recognized risk factor for VTE. Some systemic treatments may increase this risk further. Here, we present the risk of VTE and its prognostic significance in patients treated with chemotherapy (chemo) and the EGFR monoclonal antibody necitumumab (neci) for metastatic NSCLC. Methods: Four trials of 1st-line treatment for Stage IV NSCLC were included in this analysis. SQUIRE (N = 1079) and INSPIRE (N = 616) were randomized phase 3 studies of cisplatin/gemcitabine +/- neci in squamous NSCLC and cisplatin/pemetrexed +/- neci in non-squamous NSCLC, respectively. JFCL (N = 161) was a randomized phase 2 study of carboplatin/paclitaxel +/- neci in squamous NSCLC. JFCK (N = 61) was a single arm study of cisplatin/gemcitabine+neci in squamous NSCLC. VTE risk was explored in each study in univariate analyses. A Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as a fixed covariate and any VTE (prior Hx and/or on-treatment) as a time-dependent covariate was used for survival (OS) analyses. Results: On-treatment VTE across studies ranged from 3.6-8.3% for chemo alone and 3.8-13.2% for neci+chemo. Neci+chemo was associated with increased VTE risk in SQUIRE (Relative Risk [RR] 1.699; CI 1.09-2.65), INSPIRE (RR 1.58; CI 0.99-2.52), and JFCL (RR 1.04; CI 0.20-5.49) compared to chemotherapy alone. Previous Hx of VTE was the strongest predictor of VTE in SQUIRE (RR 2.63; CI 1.296-5.34) and INSPIRE (RR 1.62; CI 0.79-3.33). In SQUIRE, other baseline risk factors with RR > 1.00 included age > 65, Hb < 10 g/dL, BMI > 35 kg/m2, and current smoking. Occurrence of VTE at any time was not associated with shorter OS in randomised trials: HR 1.06; CI 0.85-1.33 (SQUIRE), HR 0.99; CI 0.76-1.27 (INSPIRE), HR 1.16; CI 0.56-2.41 (JFCL). Conclusions: VTE was more frequent in patients on neci+chemo vs chemo alone, but was not associated with shorter OS. Hx of VTE was the most significant risk factor for VTE occurrence. A pooled analysis of all 4 trials is pending.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.022
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.494
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→