MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954144408 · doi:10.3747/co.26.4481

Initial Management of Small-Cell Lung Cancer (limited- and Extensive-Stage) and the Role of Thoracic Radiotherapy and First-Line Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2954144408 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
A. Sun, Lisa Durocher-Allen, Peter Ellis, Yee Ung, John R. Goffin, Kevin Ramchandar, Gail Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineEtoposideChemotherapyRadiation therapyCisplatinOncologyStage (stratigraphy)CarboplatinLung cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with limited-stage (LS) or extensive-stage (ES) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) are commonly given platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment. Standard chemotherapy for patients with LS SCLC includes a platinum agent such as cisplatin combined with the non-platinum agent etoposide. The objective of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy in patients with ES SCLC and to determine the appropriate timing, dose, and schedule of chemotherapy or radiation for patients with SCLC. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS) comparing treatment with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy against treatment with chemotherapy alone in patients with ES SCLC. Identified rcts were also included if they compared various timings, doses, and schedules of treatment for patients with ES SCLC or LS SCLC. Results: Sixty-four RCTSwere included. In patients with LS SCLC, overall survival was greatest with platinum–etoposide compared with other chemotherapy regimens. In patients with ES SCLC, overall survival was greatest with chemotherapy containing platinum–irinotecan than with chemotherapy containing platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 0.95; p = 0.006). The addition of radiation to chemotherapy for patients with ES SCLC showed mixed results. There was no conclusive evidence that the timing, dose, or schedule of thoracic radiation affected treatment outcomes in SCLC. Conclusions: In patients with LS SCLC, cisplatin–etoposide plus radiotherapy should remain the standard therapy. In patients with ES SCLC, the evidence is insufficient to recommend the addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy as standard practice to improve overall survival. However, on a case-by-case basis, radiotherapy might be added to reduce local recurrence. The most commonly used chemotherapy is platinum–etoposide; however, platinum–irinotecan can be considered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207