Association between tumor response to systemic therapy and patient-reported disease symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association of treatment-induced tumor shrinkage with symptom palliation for patients with lung cancer remains unknown. We investigated this correlation using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised. METHODS: Using the in-hospital cancer registry, we identified patients receiving chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced or metastatic lung cancer. Tumor response and post-treatment Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised were obtained after 2-3 treatment cycles. Patients were divided into groups with or without >30% unidirectional tumor shrinkage (objective response [OR] or non-OR [N-OR] groups, respectively). They were further classified as good-objective response (>50% unidirectional tumor shrinkage), moderate-objective response (30-50% shrinkage), progressive disease (>20% tumor growth or new lesion) or stable disease (SD; N-objective response and non-progressive disease). The primary endpoint was change in the total Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised score from baseline. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were enrolled. The total Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised score was significantly more improved in the OR group versus the N-OR group (median: 5 vs. 2, respectively; P = 0.013). This association was more prominent in patients with small-cell lung cancer and large-cell neuroendocrine tumor than those with other histology. Sensitivity analyses showed that the total Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised score was more improved in the OR group versus the SD group (median: 5 vs. 3, respectively; P = 0.029) and in the 'good-OR' group versus the 'moderate-OR and SD' group (median: 7.5 vs. 2, respectively; P = 0.003), suggesting that greater tumor shrinkage led to more symptom amelioration. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor shrinkage was associated with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised score improvement in patients with lung cancer receiving systemic therapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".