Low Body Mass Index Is an Independent Prognostic Factor in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia and obesity have been suspected as factors associated with efficacy of treatment and prognosis in various malignancies. This study aimed to investigate the association of pretreatment sarcopenia and visceral obesity with efficacy and prognosis of first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and positive EGFR mutation. METHODS: We retrospectively collected 167 NSCLC patients with mutant EGFR who had started EGFR-TKI monotherapy between October 2007 and August 2018 at our hospital. We classified 167 patients into two groups, according to the definition of underweight based on the World Health Organization (WHO) body mass index (BMI) classification and the Japanese sex-specific cut-off values of the following computed tomography (CT) images-assessed markers of pretreatment sarcopenia or visceral obesity, such as psoas muscle index (PMI), intramuscular adipose tissue content (IMAC) and visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) at lumbar vertebra L3 level. We compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of two groups by Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted by age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, performance status, EGFR mutation types and EGFR-TKI lines, and extra-pulmonary metastases or three or more than 3 metastatic sites, we searched independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS of EGFR-TKI therapy. RESULTS: The OS (median 26.0 vs. 32.3 months, P = 0.02) and PFS (9.1 vs. 14.8 months, P = 0.03) of patients with BMI < 18.5 were significantly shorter than those of patients with BMI ≥ 18.5. However, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS according to PMI, IMAC and VSR. The multivariate analyses detected only BMI < 18.5 as an unfavorable prognostic factor of shorter OS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 - 2.81, P = 0.04) and PFS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.11 - 2.67, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment underweight was a significant prognostic factor of poor PFS and OS of EGFR-TKI therapy. However, neither pretreatment sarcopenia nor visceral obesity was associated with prognosis of EGFR-TKI. Underweight may be a surrogate for advanced disease burden.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".