The impact of synchronous malignancies on survival in patients with early stage curable non-small-cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine if synchronous extrapulmonary malignancies in early stage lung cancer impact survival and cost of care in the current era of improved therapies and diagnostics. METHODS: Patients with stage I and II lung cancer were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and prognostic factors were obtained from provincial health administrative databases. Synchronous extrapulmonary malignancies were defined as those detected within 6 months from diagnosis of the lung primary. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and examined based on a 6-month landmark time point. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the effect of synchronous primaries on survival, univariately and after adjusting for prognostic factors. Cost of care was calculated by summing fees for all provincially funded services over 3 years. RESULTS: In a cohort of 6890 patients, those with synchronous malignancy had a HR of 1.32 (p = 0.026) for death in stage I patients, adjusted for other factors, while no association was found for stage II patients (HR=1.00, p = 0.99). 18F-FDG-PET/CT up to 6 months prior to lung cancer diagnosis had a HR of 0.84 (p = 0.003) for death adjusted for other factors. 3-year costs of care for these patients were $79,540 versus $54,520 in those without a synchronous malignancy (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Extrapulmonary malignancies in stage I lung cancer patients may negatively impact survival with no such association for stage II patients. 18F-FDG-PET/CT performed before lung cancer diagnosis is associated with better survival. Cost of care is higher in patients with synchronous malignancies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".