MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048997450 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-5489

Abstract 5489: The cost of delaying therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a population kinetics assessment

2020· article· en· W3048997450 on OpenAlexaffabout
David J. Stewart, Donna E. Maziak, Marcio M. Gomes, Michael Fung‐Kee‐Fung, Carole Dennie, Harman Sekhon, Bernard Lo, John‐Peter Bradford, Sara Moore, Neil Reaume

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboSubgroup analysisPopulationInternal medicineLung cancerOncologySurvival analysisSurgeryConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Systemic therapy prolongs overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC. The best outcome requires the best therapy choice. To choose the best therapy requires baseline diagnostic tests, staging and molecular profiling, but patients are at risk of deteriorating and dying while awaiting testing prior to therapy initiation. OS follows first order kinetics. We used population kinetics assessments to estimate % of patients dying while awaiting therapy initiation. Method: For 1st line studies in advanced NSCLC that included a placebo or best supportive care (BSC) arm we digitized published OS curves, used GraphPad Prism 7 for exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis, calculated OS half-life (t1/2) and assessed data fit to 1 and 2 phase decay models. The proportion of patients “x” surviving after a time of interest tn was calculated by the Excel formula x =EXP(-tn*0.693/t1/2) where * indicates multiplication and 0.693 is the natural logarithm of 2. Results: We identified 7 trials and a meta-analysis. Across studies, the median OS t1/2 with 1st line placebo/BSC was 19.3 weeks. Hence, by 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after study entry 4%, 7%, 10% and 13% of patients, respectively, would have died (ie, 4% of the remaining patients with each passing week). This is in keeping with most OS curves showing rapid decline from the outset. OS curves fit 2 phase decay models in 5 studies, indicating a distinct short survival subgroup (on average, 89% of patients in these trials) and a longer surviving subgroup (potentially from having initiated systemic therapy when progression was detected). The short survival subgroup had a median OS t1/2 across studies of 11.3 weeks. The earliest deaths would be expected to occur predominantly in this short survival subgroup, in which 5%, 9%, 13% and 17% had died by 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks respectively. Conclusions: Since OS follows first order kinetics, OS decline was probably following approximately the same rate prior to patient inclusion on these trials. In addition, since patients may deteriorate rapidly, others may have become too sick to consider therapy even if still alive. Rapid deterioration and short OS help explain why less than 25% of Ontario patients make it on to systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC despite the therapy being government funded. Since diagnostic, staging and molecular profiling procedures are needed before optimal therapy can start, these procedures must happen rapidly. It also illustrates why we must make screening procedures for clinical trial inclusion much faster. Otherwise patients are at risk of deteriorating rapidly or dying while awaiting eligibility assessment. It is also important to not delay initiation of systemic therapy for procedures such as radiotherapy for asymptomatic brain metastases. Any inefficiency that delays systemic therapy initiation may worsen patient outcome. Citation Format: David J. Stewart, Donna Maziak, Marcio Gomes, Michael Fung-Kee-Fung, Carole Dennie, Harman Sekhon, Bryan Lo, John-Peter Bradford, Sara Moore, Neil Reaume. The cost of delaying therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a population kinetics assessment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 5489.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207