MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Treatment and outcome of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2009· article· en· W2965233712 on OpenAlexaff
Amr Ali, John R. Goffin, Andrew Arnold, Peter Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrain metastasisLung cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancerBrain tumorMetastasisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19058 Background: The prognosis of patients with brain metastases from NSCLC is generally poor. However, some reports suggest that the outlook of patients with brain metastases at the time of diagnosis may be similar to that of patients with advanced NSCLC without brain metastases. We undertook a retrospective review of NSCLC patients with brain metastases to examine the outcomes of care for patients with brain metastases from NSCLC. Methods: All new lung cancer patients seen in our institution between July 2005 and June 2007 were assessed for the development of brain metastases. Baseline characteristics, treatment and outcome data were extracted from the chart. The primary outcome of interest was a comparison of survival of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis compared with patients who developed brain metastases later. Results: 91 of 878 (10.4%) new patients seen over the 2 years developed brain metastases. There were 43 men and 48 women. The median age was 64 yrs (sd 10.6yrs). 45 patients had brain metastases at presentation while 46 developed brain metastases later. 34 (37%) had a solitary brain metastasis. 18 (20%) underwent surgical resection. The median overall survival for all patients was 7.8m. Patients with brain metastases at diagnosis had a significantly shorter overall survival than patients who developed brain metastases later (9.8m v 4.3m, p=0.001). Survival following diagnosis of brain metastases was similar for both groups (3.7m v 4.8m, p=0.53). Patients presenting with brain metastases were less likely to be referred to a medical oncologist (51% v 74%, p=0.02) and less likely to receive chemotherapy (18% v 41%, p=0.01). Conclusions: These data suggest that NSCLC patients with brain metastases at diagnosis have a significantly worse outcome than patients who develop brain metastases at a subsequent time point in their illness. Few patients received systemic therapy following diagnosis of brain metastases and further research is needed to determine the utility of chemotherapy in this patient group. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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