Quality of life and survival in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
19649 Background: Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint measure in clinical cancer trials. We evaluated prospectively the effects of two cycles of chemotherapy (CT) on QoL and the relationship between QoL and survival in advanced NSCLC patients (pts). Methods: The short-form of the SF36 was completed prior to and after 2 cycles of chemotherapy. An ITT analysis was used; a score of 0 was assigned to those who died and the last observation was carried forward for those with missing data. Results: Fifty-nine pts consented to participate and pre-chemo evaluation was available for 58 pts. Of these 58, only 40 pts completed the study (4 died, 14 did not complete the post evaluation). There were 26M: 32F with a median age of 61±11 years. Fifty pts (86%) were stage 3B (pl. eff)/4 and 50pts (86%) were PS 0–1. Overall QoL decreased significantly from 100±19 to 91±36 after two cycles of chemotherapy (p=0.03). This decline was attributed to a significant decrease in the physical health subscale (p=0.001), with 36% of pts reporting a clinically significant decline of =2. No change in the mental health subscale was observed. The symptoms that had the most profound negative impact on the physical health subscale were: ‘easily get sick’ (54%), ‘increased pain’ (30%) and ‘decreased activities’ (27%). SD+PR occurred in 36 (62%) pts, whereas 22 (38%) pts had PD after two cycles of chemotherapy. No correlation was found between response to chemo and change in QoL. The median survival (15±6.8mo), of pts whose QoL score remained stable or improved (n=36) was significantly better than those (n=22) whose QoL decreased (9±3.2 mo) (p=0.01). Conclusions: QoL decreased following chemotherapy due to a decrease in the physical health subscale. Further studies are required to determine if training can improve physical health and thus QoL and survival. 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".