Survival Implications of De Novo Versus Recurrent Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has a poor prognosis. Most patients present with stage IV, and many patients treated curatively with stage I to III develop recurrent metastatic disease. It is unknown whether the natural history differs between patients with recurrent versus de novo metastatic NSCLC. We hypothesized that de novo metastatic status is associated with decreased overall survival compared with recurrent metastatic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was completed of all patients with NSCLC referred to BC Cancer from 2005 to 2012. Two cohorts were created; de novo metastatic disease and patients treated with curative intent (surgery or radiotherapy) that developed recurrent, metastatic disease. Information was collected on known prognostic and predictive factors. Overall survival was calculated from the date of diagnosis of metastatic disease. RESULTS: A total of 9651 patients were evaluated, 5782 (60%) with de novo stage IV disease, and 3869 (40%) with stage I to III disease. Of the 1658 patients who received curative therapy for stage I to III disease, 757 (46%) developed metastases. Patients in the de novo cohort versus recurrent cohort were more likely male (52% vs. 48%), have poorer performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group≥2 50% vs. 44%), and receive no palliative systemic therapy (67% vs. 61%). The median overall survival in the de novo cohort was 4.7 versus 6.9 m in the recurrent cohort (P<0.001). De novo status was associated with shorter overall survival and this remained significant in a multivariate model that incorporated known prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population-based study of NSCLC, de novo metastatic status was independently associated with decreased overall survival from the time of metastatic disease diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".