The efficacy of anlotinib as third-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer by EGFR mutation status: a subgroup analysis of the ALTER0303 randomized phase 3 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anlotinib demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo as a third-line or subsequent therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the ALTER0303 trial. The status of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, different previous treatment may affect the efficacy of subsequent therapy, and we did this subgroup analysis to characterize the efficacy of anlotinib in patients with and without EGFR mutation. Methods: The ALTER0303 trial was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of anlotinib in patients with NSCLC who failed at least 2 lines of treatment. In the study, 138 of 437 randomized patients were EGFR mutation positive. A Cox model was used to examine the influence of previous treatment on the efficacy of anlotinib according to EGFR mutation status. Results: For patients with EGFR mutation, the OS was 10.7 and 6.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.38-0.94, P=0.025) in the anlotinib and placebo group, respectively. The PFS was 5.6 and 0.8 months (HR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.13-0.32, P<0.0001) in the anlotinib and placebo group, respectively. For patients without EGFR mutation, the OS was 8.9 months for anlotinib and 6.5 months for placebo (HR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.97, P=0.029), and the PFS was 5.4 months for anlotinib and 1.6 months for placebo (HR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.22-0.39, P<0.0001). In the anlotinib group, the OS and PFS for patients with and without EGFR mutation was 10.7 and 8.9 months (HR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50-0.95, P=0.021), 5.6 and 5.4 months (HR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75-1.34, P=1.000), respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in subgroups. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that the benefit of anlotinib as a third-line therapy for patients with NSCLC was independent of EGFR mutation status.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".