Treatment and treatment outcomes of advanced NSCLC patients in routine clinical care: Results of the retrospective LUCEOR study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6058 Background: Although NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer, published data on both treatment patterns and outcomes in routine clinical care are scarce. Collecting this data systematically across countries will help to understand, compare and improve patient care. Methods: 1,490 patient charts were reviewed retrospectively from 40 sites in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands and the UK, 1436 of those evaluable. Patients deceased before April 2010 were eligible if ≥18 years, diagnosed with advanced stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and had received active 1st line anti-cancer treatment. Demographic data, disease and, treatment history and resource use were collected from start of first line treatment until death. Results: Mean age at NSCLC diagnosis was 64 years [SD=10.6], 67% of patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis and 66% were male. Confirmed tumor histology was adenocarcinoma in 50% of patients, squamous and large cell carcinoma in 23% and 14%, respectively. Tumour histology was not available in 13% of patients. Mean number of treatment lines was 1.7 [range 1-8]. Biomarker analysis was performed in 19% of patients (of those 26% and 13% tested for EGFR and KRAS mutation, respectively) within less than one month of diagnosis. 1st line therapy included mainly platinum doublets (86%, mostly carboplatine/gemcitabine [23%]), 2nd line included erlotinib (35%) and pemetrexed (18%), and 3rd line included erlotinib (38%) and docetaxel (17%). Most treated patients had ECOG performance status of 1. Stable disease (based on RECIST) was highest during 1st line therapy with 30%. Median PFS from start of 1st line treatment was 3.8 months [SD=7.1], with a median OS of 7.1 months [SD=11.6]. Conclusions: The majority of patients were diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma and a number of patients were tested for EGFR or KRAS mutation. Overall treatment outcomes observed in routine care seem lower than those observed in clinical trials. Also current therapeutic options for NSCLC seem to provide limited clinical benefit, underpinning the need for new treatment alternatives to prolong PFS and OS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".