Real World Analysis of Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: Prognostic Factors and Treatment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this observational study, we assessed treatment patterns and prognostic factors in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in a large state-mandated healthcare organization in Israel. Methods: All incident cases with histologically confirmed SCLC who initiated systemic anti-cancer treatment between 2011 and 2017 were identified. Treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) were evaluated for each line of therapy. Results: A total of 235 patients were identified (61% male, median age 64 years, 95% ever smokers, 64% had extensive stage). The first-line treatment was platinum–etoposide regimen for 98.7% of the cohort. The second and third-line regimen were given to 43% and 12% of patients, respectively. Mean OS for extensive and limited stage patients was 9.1 and 23.5 months respectively. In a multivariable model, increased risk for mortality was observed among patients with an ECOG performance status (PS) of 2 compared to a PS of 0–1 for the extensive stage patients (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.63, 95% confidence ratios (CI): 1.00–2.65); and for males compared to females for the limited stage patients (HR = 2.17; 95% CI: 1.12–4.20). Regarding all 2nd line patients in a multivariable model incorporating relevant confounding factors, demonstrated a significantly better outcome with platinum–based regimens compared to topotecan. Median survival after initiation of 2nd line in platinum-sensitive patients was longer (p = 0.056) for those re-challenged with platinum–based regimen (n = 7): 6.8mo (6.1-not reported (NR)), compared with those switched to a different treatment (n = 27): 4.5 mo (2.6–6.6) for extensive stage patients, and a non-significant difference was also observed for limited stage patients. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is one of the largest real-world studies of SCLC patients. OS for SCLC patients was similar to that reported in clinical trials. PS for extensive stage patients and sex for limited stage patients were significant correlates of prognosis. Re-challenge of the platinum–based doublet was associated with longer OS compared to switching treatment in extensive stage patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".