Overall survival benefits of advances in NSCLC systemic treatments: Younger versus older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
93 Background: Historically, there has been limited systemic therapy options for older adults with cancer attributed to underlying frailty, co-morbidities, poor functional status, and limited social supports. In the past decade, treatment for advanced NSCLC has changed with increasing availability of novel therapeutics associated with improved tolerability and efficacy, such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The study goal is to compare the difference in overall survival (OS) between younger adults and older adults with the introduction of novel therapeutic options. Methods: All patients with stage IV NSCLC referred to BC Cancer in 2009, 2011, 2015 and 2017 were included in the study. One-year time points were chosen based on molecular testing implementation and provincial formulary listing: baseline (2009), EGFR testing (2011), ALK testing (2015) and immunotherapy listing (2017). Age was categorized as younger (< 70 years) and older (≥70 years) adults. Baseline demographics, simplified comorbidity score (SCS ≥9 associated with poor prognosis), disease characteristics, and systemic therapy details (agent, duration, line of therapy) were collected retrospectively. Univariate analysis using X2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare age groups. OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 3325 patients with stage IV NSCLC were identified. Baseline characteristics for patients < 70 y; female 51%, non-squamous 62%, ECOG ≥2 50%, SCS ≥9 29% vs patients ≥70 y; female 49%, non-squamous 57%, ECOG ≥2 61%, SCS ≥9 58%. In the four time cohorts 2009/2011/2015/2017, systemic treatment was delivered to < 70 y 44/53/51/52 % vs ≥70 y 23/25/28/30 %. Median OS with BSC for < 70 y 3.1/2.8/2.8/2.5 m vs ≥70 y 3.8/3.3/3.4/3.1 m (p = 0.10). Median OS with systemic treatment for < 70 y 9.0/10.9/13.9/15.5 m (p < 0.001) vs ≥70 y 11.4/11.7/13.9/14.9 m (p < 0.001). Median OS by type of treatment BSC/chemotherapy only/targeted therapy/immunotherapy; < 70 y 2.8/8.9/21.4/20.2 m vs ≥70 y 3.1/10.1/21.5/20.1 m (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective review of patients with advanced NSCLC, there was an increased uptake of systemic therapy for both age groups with the introduction of novel therapeutics. Although there was a smaller proportion of older adults who received systemic therapy, those who received treatment had comparable OS to their young counterpart. The benefit of systemic therapy in both age groups was seen across the different types of treatments. This suggests with careful assessment and selection of appropriate candidates, older adults with advanced NSCLC should receive equitable access to systemic therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".