MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post study docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients after discontinuation from a randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel: An exploratory analysis

2004· article· en· W4249024289 on OpenAlexaff
J.-L. Pujol, S. Shaharyar, C. Kortsik, Min-Chi Wu, C. Bagnes, F. Barata, L. Kayitalire, Shao-Fu Hong, Frances A. Shepherd, Frank V. Fossella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocetaxelPemetrexedMedicineChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicineLung cancerDiscontinuationSurgeryCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7135 Background: For NSCLC pts with good performance status, second-line treatment with chemotherapy improves survival. Routine administration of second-line chemotherapy has increased the percentage of pts receiving third-line therapy. In a recent multicenter, randomized, phase III comparison of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in previously treated pts with advanced NSCLC, survival time with pemetrexed therapy was similar to docetaxel (median 8.3 vs 7.9 months). Over 40% of pts in the study received third-line chemotherapy post study. Of those pts treated with pemetrexed, 32% received docetaxel post study. The aim of this exploratory analysis was to evaluate if the survival observed in the pemetrexed arm was due to a cross-over effect of post study chemotherapy with docetaxel as opposed to other post study chemotherapy agents. Methods: Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method in 3 subsets of patients with respect to their post study treatment. Results: In total, 541 pts received either pemetrexed or docetaxel; 48% of pts in the pemetrexed arm and 39% of pts in the docetaxel arm received third line chemotherapy. In the pemetrexed arm, the median survival of pts who received post study docetaxel was 1 month less (9.6) than the median survival of pts who received other post study chemotherapy agents (10.6; p=.219). Conclusions: In the original study, overall survival was similar for both treatment arms. In this evaluation, these results provide no evidence that the overall survival observed in the pemetrexed arm with third-line post study docetaxel is different than that observed in the pts who received other third-line post study chemotherapy agents. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Eli Lilly & Co. Aventis; Eli Lilly & Co. Eli Lilly & Co. Eli Lilly & Co. Eli Lilly & Co.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207