Preoperative Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery Compared With Primary Surgery in Resectable Stage I (Except T1N0), II, and IIIa Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether preoperative chemotherapy (PCT) could improve survival in resectable stage I (except T1N0), II, and IIIA non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized trial compared PCT to primary surgery (PRS). PCT consisted of two cycles of mitomycin (6 mg/m2, day 1), ifosfamide (1.5 g/m2, days 1 to 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2, days 1 to 3), and two additional postoperative cycles for responding patients. In both arms, patients with pT3 or pN2 disease received thoracic radiotherapy. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five eligible patients were randomized. Overall response to PCT was 64%. There were two preoperative toxic deaths. Postoperative mortality was 6.7% in the PCT arm and 4.5% in the PRS arm (P = .38). Median survival was 37 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.7 to 48.3) for PCT and 26.0 months (95% CI, 19.8 to 33.6) for PRS (P = .15). Survival differences between both arms increased from 3.8% (95% CI, 1.3% to 25.1%) at 1 year to 8.6% (95% CI, 2.64% to 24.4%) at 4 years. A quantitative interaction between N status and treatment was observed, with benefit confined to N0 to N1 disease (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.96; P = .027). After a nonsignificant excess of deaths during treatment, the effect of PCT was significantly favorable on survival (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99; P = .044). Disease-free survival time was significantly longer in the PCT arm (P = .033). CONCLUSION: Although impressive differences in median, 3-year, and 4-year survival were observed, they were not statistically significant, except for stage I and II disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".