Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for oligo-progressive disease refractory to systemic therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A registry-based phase II randomized trial (SUPPRESS-NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with oligoprogression remains controversial. There is limited data to support the strategy of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) targeting the oligoprogressive disease in combination with ongoing systemic treatment. We aim to assess the benefit of this approach compared to standard of care in the treatment of oligoprogressive NSCLC. METHODS: This phase II study will enroll 68 patients with oligoprogressive NSCLC, defined as 1-5 progressive extracranial lesions ≤5 cm involving ≤3 organs. Patients on active systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy or a combination) will be randomized 1:1 to either continue their current systemic therapy in combination with SABR to all lesions or the standard of care (switch to the next line of treatment, continue same treatment or observation). The co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include time to next systemic treatment, patient-reported quality of life, cost effectiveness as well as translational analysis to characterize both adaptive immunity and immunogenic cell death markers in the peripheral blood. DISCUSSION: There is an unmet need to carefully examine the efficacy, safety and quality of life impact of SABR in the context of oligoprogressive disease. The present study will provide higher level randomized evidence on the role of SABR in oligoprogressive NSCLC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".