Sequential Afatinib and Osimertinib in Patients with <i>EGFR</i> Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Final Analysis of the GioTag Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Final overall survival (OS) and time on treatment analysis of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 203) had T790M-positive disease following first-line afatinib and started osimertinib treatment ≥10 months before data entry. Primary outcome was time on treatment; OS analysis was exploratory. Results: Median time on treatment with afatinib and osimertinib was 27.7 months (90% CI: 26.7–29.9). Median OS was 37.6 months (90% CI: 35.5–41.3); median OS was 41.6 and 44.8 months in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients, respectively. Conclusion: In real-world clinical practice, sequential afatinib and osimertinib was associated with encouraging outcomes in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, especially in Del19-positive patients and Asian patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03370770 (ClinicalTrials.gov)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".