MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Optimizing outcomes throughout the trajectory of care.

2021· article· en· W3166907380 on OpenAlexaffabout
Severin Schmid, Enrico Maria Minnella, Sara Najmeh, Jonathan Cools‐Lartigue, Lorenzo Ferri, David S. Mulder, Christian Sirois, Scott Owen, Francesco Carli, Jonathan Spicer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicineNeoadjuvant therapyLung cancerSurgeryCancerPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20545 Background: Prehabilitation is well established for improving outcomes in cancer surgery. Combining prehabilitation with neoadjuvant treatments may provide an opportunity to rapidly initiate cancer-directed therapy while improving functional status in preparation for local consolidation. In this proof-of-concept study, we analyzed non-small-cell lung cancer patients who underwent simultaneous prehabilitation and neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer followed by curative intent surgery at the McGill University Health Center between 2015-2020. Patients who were screened for the prehabilitation program were identified. Screening included assessment of physical performance, nutritional status and signs for anxiety and depression. 6-minute-walk test was used as a functional outcome parameter of prehabilitation. Results: We identified a total of 93 patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 12 patients were screened to undergo a prehabilitation program. For 1 patient surgical intervention was too soon to complete the program, 1 patient dropped out after the first and another patient was deemed fit to undergo surgery without intervention. Thus, 9 patients completed full neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy. Postoperative median length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-5) and there were no mortalities. We found major complications in 1 patient and minor complications (prolonged air leak) in 2 cases. Patients improved their 6-minute-walk test despite undergoing neoadjuvant treatment by a mean of 35 meters (SD 39). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy is feasible and associated with encouraging results. The performance of all measures remains a logistic challenge. With multimodal strategies for lung cancer treatment becoming key to optimal outcomes, neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy is a concept worthy of prospective multi-center evaluation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.407 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→