The Impact of Chemosensitivity on the Outcome of Brain Metastases in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic differences between patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with different chemosensitivity to first-line chemotherapy who developed brain metastasis (BM) as the first site of progression. Methods: Patients with a BM after first-line treatment in the Tianjin Cancer Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. According to the time-free interval (TFI) between the completion of first-line chemotherapy and the onset of the BM, the patients were divided into the chemo-sensitive group (TFI ≥ 90 days, n = 145) and the chemo-resistant group (TFI < 90 days, n = 97). The survival time, which was calculated from the diagnosis of the BM, was analyzed after the onset of brain metastasis (BM-OS). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between groups were compared using the log-rank test. Results: In total, the median BM-OS was 8.4 months. The median BM-OS in the chemo-sensitive group was 8.8 months, and it was 8.0 months in the chemo-resistant group (p = 0.538). In patients without extracranial progression (n = 193), the median BM-OSes in the chemo-sensitive and chemo-resistant groups were 9.4 months and 9.7 months, respectively (p = 0.947). In patients with extracranial progression (n = 49), the median BM-OSes in the chemo-sensitive and chemo-resistant groups were 5.4 months and 4.2 months, respectively (p = 0.161). Conclusions: After the development of a BM as the first site of progression following chemotherapy in patients with SCLC, the prognosis of chemo-sensitive patients was not necessarily superior to chemo-resistant patients, especially in patients without extracranial progression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".