MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Real-world outcomes among patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus immunotherapy or chemotherapy in first-line setting.

2020· article· en· W3031830911 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Simmons, Maral DerSarkissian, Rahul Shenolikar, Min‐Jung Wang, Angela Lax, Aruna Muthukumar, François Laliberté, Mei Sheng Duh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyLung cancerProportional hazards modelChemotherapyEpidermal growth factor receptorCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

281 Background: While EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the NCCN-recommended first-line (1L) therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts) with EGFR mutation (EGFRm), many pts initiate immunotherapy (IO) + chemotherapy (chemo) prior to receiving EGFRm test results. This study assessed clinical outcomes associated with initiating EGFR-TKI vs other therapies in stage IV EGFRm NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in adults with stage IV EGFRm NSCLC who initiated 1L EGFR-TKI, IO (+ chemo), or chemo alone from 5/2017-12/2018, using Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record data. Treatment patterns were characterized with respect to timing of EGFRm test results. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the median duration of therapy (DoT) and time to next therapy (TTNT), as proxies for progression-free survival. Adjusted hazards ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) representing the effect of 1L therapy on the risk of discontinuing treatment or death (DoT) and the risk of initiating second-line therapy or death (TTNT) were reported from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models controlling for differences in demographics, smoking history, histology, cancer stage, ECOG score, NCI index, time from diagnosis to 1L initiation, and year of 1L initiation, across treatment arms. Results: Among 593 study pts, mean age was 67.5 years and 65.4% were female. EGFR-TKI was used as 1L therapy for 77.2% of pts (n=458), IO in 13.3% (n=79) and chemo in 9.4% (n=56). 7.2% of EGFR-TKI pts, 54.4% of IO pts, and 57.1% of chemo pts initiated 1L before receiving EGFRm test results. Compared to pts on IO and chemo, pts on EGFR-TKI had longer median DoT (EGFR-TKI: 8.7 months [mo]; IO: 4.8 mo; chemo: 3.0 mo, p<0.01) and median TTNT (EGFR-TKI: 12.3 mo; IO: 6.5 mo; chemo: 4.0 mo, p<0.01). Adjusted analyses showed that compared to pts on IO or chemo, pts on EGFR-TKI had significantly lower risk of discontinuing therapy or death (DoT) and initiating second-line therapy or death (TTNT) (Table). Conclusions: Substantial numbers of pts initiated IO + chemo in 1L and EGFR-TKI was associated with better clinical outcomes than IO + chemo, suggesting the importance of adhering to NCCN-recommended therapy for stage IV EGFRm NSCLC pts. [Table: see text]

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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