MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A pooled analysis of the effect of age on adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2007· article· en· W4240003524 on OpenAlexaff
M. Fruh, H. Tribodet, J. Pignon, T. Winton, Thierry Le Chevalier, Giorgio V. Scagliotti, Jean-Yves Douillard, L. Seymour, S. G. Spiro, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCisplatinHazard ratioChemotherapyInternal medicineToxicityLung cancerRadiation therapyOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelAdjuvantCancerSurvival analysisSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7553 Background: Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) has been shown to increase survival in NSCLC, but uncertainty exists concerning its efficacy and toxicity in elderly patients (≥ 70). Methods: We performed a pooled analysis using individual patient data from 4,584 patients in the LACE database with resected stage IA-III NSCLC enrolled in 5 randomized trials, comparing postoperative CT to no CT (ALPI, ANITA, BLT, IALT and JBR10). Patient and treatment characteristics, CT toxicity and delivery, overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS) and cause-specific mortality were compared among 3 age groups: 3,269 (71%) young (<65), 901 (20%) mid-category (65–69) and 414 (9%) elderly (≥70). The analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Cox models stratified by trials and adjusted for age, associated drug, planned radiotherapy, total dose of cisplatin (<300, 300, >300), gender, stage, performance status, type of surgery and histology were used with a test for trend to study the effect of CT on survival according to age. Results: Baseline characteristics differed among the age groups, but this was due mainly to the different trial populations and designs. No difference in severe toxicity rate was observed among the age groups. Elderly patients received significantly smaller total doses of cisplatin than the other patients (Chi2-test: p<0.0001) and also the cisplatin doses received were more often lower than the planned one (Kruskal-Wallis test: p<0.0001). The Hazard ratio (HR) of death for the young patients was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.92), 0.86 (95% CI 0.70–1.07) for the mid category and 1.01 (95% CI 0.78–1.32) for elderly patients (test for trend: p=0.17). The HR for DFS was 0.79 (95% CI 0.71–0.87) for the young, 0.76 (95% 0.62–0.93) for the mid category and 0.94 (95% CI 0.73–1.22) for the elderly patients (test for trend: p=0.35). More elderly patients died from non- lung cancer related causes (10% young, 16% mid category and 20% elderly; p<0.0001). Conclusions: The survival benefit from cisplatin-based adjuvant therapy for NSCLC patients was not significantly different according to age, but this may be due to lack of power. Supported by unrestricted grants from PHRC and LNCC No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.014
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.400 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→