MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Eligibility of real-world patients with metastatic lung cancer for clinical trial participation: A population-based analysis.

2020· article· en· W3091774332 on OpenAlexaffabout
Atul Batra, Shiying Kong, Rodrigo Rigo, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioPopulationConfidence intervalClinical trialImmunosuppressionAnemiaCancerRenal functionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

93 Background: Due to highly selective enrollment in clinical trials, the generalizability of results may be limited. This study aimed to identify the proportion of real-world patients with metastatic lung cancer (MLC) eligible to participate in a clinical trial. Methods: We identified patients diagnosed with MLC in a large Canadian province from 2004 to 2017. Ineligibility to participate in a clinical trial was defined by common exclusion criteria: age > 75 years, anemia, comorbid conditions (heart disease, uncontrolled diabetes, kidney disease, or liver disease) and history of a prior malignancy or immunosuppression. Logistic regression models were used to describe the likelihood of receiving systemic therapy and Cox regression models were constructed to determine the association of trial ineligibility with overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 13,996 patients were included; the median age was 70 years and 46.9% were women. Of these, 8,615 (61.6%) were trial-ineligible. The common reasons for ineligibility were age > 75 years (11.5%), abnormal renal function (8.3%) and prior immunosuppression (3.2%). Further, 32.3% of patients were ineligible by multiple exclusion criteria. In the real-world, 40.6% and 21.8% of trial-eligible and ineligible patients received systemic therapy (P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, trial-ineligible patients had lower odds of receiving systemic therapy (odds ratio, .84; 95% confidence interval [CI], .76-.92; P < .001). At a median follow-up of 66.2 months, the median OS of trial-eligible patients was 5.1 months as compared to 2.9 months in those deemed ineligible (P < .001). Receipt of systemic therapy was associated with longer OS in both trial-eligible (10.5 vs 2.7 months, P < .001) and ineligible (9.3 vs 2.1 months, P < .001) patients. In a Cox regression model that adjusted for age, sex and systemic therapy, ineligibility was predictive of worse OS. Conclusions: More than half of patients with MLC are ineligible to participate in clinical trials. Real-world use of systemic therapy was generally low, but its use was associated with improvement in OS even among individuals considered trial-ineligible. Clinical trials should broaden their eligibility criteria to better represent the phenotype of real-world patients so that findings are more generalizable. [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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.745
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.008 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→