MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic factors among older adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A multisite cohort study.

2019· article· en· W2971880201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melisa L. Wong, Christine Miaskowski, Alexander K. Smith, W. John Boscardin, Harvey Jay Cohen, Arti Hurria, Vivian Lam, Carling Ursem, Collin M. Blakely, Matthew A. Gubens, Thierry Jahan, Caroline E. McCoach, Gregory M. Allen, Julia Rotow, Niharika Dixit, Vivek Musinipally, Katey Webber, Louise C. Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLung cancerCohortOncologyPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)Performance statusProportional hazards modelCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11540 Background: Prognosis in NSCLC is vital for clinical decision making. With the aging US population and rapidly changing treatment landscape, we aimed to identify prognostic factors among older adults with advanced NSCLC receiving chemo-, immuno-, and/or targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of adults age ≥65 with advanced NSCLC starting a new non-curative systemic treatment (chemo-, immuno-, and/or targeted therapy) at a Comprehensive Cancer Center, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and safety-net hospital. Prior to treatment initiation, patients completed a geriatric assessment including cognition, function, comorbidities, mood, social support, and quality of life. Cox proportional hazards models were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Results: In a sample of 51 patients, median age was 73 (range 65-94). The majority of patients had stage IVB (59%) or IVA (39%) NSCLC. Current treatment included immunotherapy (37%), targeted therapy (29%), chemoimmunotherapy (18%), and chemo (16%). Most patients had received prior NSCLC treatment (80%): chemo (51%), targeted therapy (35%), immunotherapy (22%), radiation (RT; 47%), and/or surgery (19%). At enrollment, 73% had an abnormal Montreal Cognitive Assessment score < 26 (MoCA; median score 23) and 35% had an abnormal Timed Up and Go time ≥13.5 secs (TUG; median time 12.7 secs). Median OS was 12.5 months. In univariable analyses, stage IVB disease (HR 6.99, 95% CI 1.55-31.5), prior RT (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.08-8.21), worse MoCA score (HR 1.15 per 1 point change, 95% CI 1.03-1.28), and longer TUG time (HR 1.13 per 1 sec change, 95% CI 1.05-1.23) were associated with worse OS. Of note, age, current NSCLC treatment, line of therapy, and Karnofsky Performance Status were not associated with OS. In multivariable analysis, MoCA score was the only statistically significant prognostic factor (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30). Conclusions: We found that abnormal pretreatment cognition is very common and an important prognostic factor among older adults with advanced NSCLC. Pretreatment screening for cognitive impairment should be considered to inform prognostication, decision making, and treatment planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207