MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Overall survival comparison in patients with and without brain metastases treated with osimertinib for metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2021· article· en· W3173023813 on OpenAlexaff
Danilo Giffoni de Mello Morais Mata, Maria Luisa Romero, Carlos Amir Carmona Gonzalez, Alia Thawer, Mark Doherty, Ines B. Menjak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalPediatric Oncology GroupHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrain metastasisOsimertinibMetastasisRadiosurgeryOncologyInternal medicineLung cancerPopulationnon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)Radiation therapyCancerEpidermal growth factor receptorErlotinib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21216 Background: With the development of Epidermal Growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as Osimertinib, the landscape of lung cancer treatment and outcomes has changed. We aimed to describe the outcomes of patients treated with Osimertinib who have brain metastasis compared to those without brain metastases. Methods: This study involved patients diagnosed with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation, from January 2010 to December 2018, who had treatment with Osimertinib at a dose of 80 mg daily. Retrospective data was collected through the electronic medical records from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the population characteristics. The log rank test was used to compare the survival distributions. Results: A total of 56 patients were included, the mean age at initial diagnosis was 63 years (range 27 – 85 years). Overall, 82.2% of this patient population received Osimertinib in 2nd line setting. A total of 50% (n = 28) had brain metastasis, and14.3% (n = 8) had leptomeningeal metastasis. Of the patients with brain metastasis, 14.3% (n = 4) had brain surgery. All patients with brain metastasis received central nervous system (CNS) radiation. With respect to radiotherapy modalities, 67.9% (n = 19) of patients with brain metastasis received gamma knife radiation, 42.85% (n = 12) were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and whole brain radiation was given to 57.1% (n = 16). Of those with brain metastasis, equal numbers of patients, 46.4% (n = 13), had EGFR mutations with exon 19-deletion and exon 21-L858R, 7.1% (n = 2) had unknown gene location EGFR mutation. The median OS for patients without brain metastasis was 38.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.5 – 39.8 months], compared to 35.9 months (95% [CI] 28.3 – 43.5 months] for those with brain metastasis ; log Rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.874. The median OS for patients diagnosed with leptomeningeal metastasis was 21 months (95% [CI] 2.9 – 39.0 months); log rank (mantel-cox). When brain metastasis was examined by EGFR mutation sub-groups, the median OS for patients with EGFR-exon 19-deletion was 26.4 months (95% CI [14.3 – 38.4 months], compared to 36.8 months, 95% CI [34.3 – 39.2 months] for those with EGFR-Exon 21-L858R; log Rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.49. Conclusions: Although there is an equivalent prevalence of brain metastasis between the two NSCLC EGFR mutation populations, in unadjusted analyses, no difference in OS was seen between patients with brain metastases compared to those without brain metastases. However, in the small number of patients with leptomeningeal disease, survival was shorter and a larger population should be studied to further explore this finding.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→