Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy between B3 Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: B3 type thymoma is defined as a well-differentiated thymic carcinoma and is similar to a thymic carcinoma. However, the differences between them are not well defined. In addition, the data to compare the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy between B3 thymoma and thymic carcinoma are lacking. Methods: The efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy was retrospectively compared between a group of 36 patients with type B3 thymoma and a group of 127 patients with thymic carcinoma treated between January 2009 and March 2022 at the Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events were analyzed. Results: The ORRs for B3 thymoma and thymic carcinoma were 36.1% and 28.3%, respectively (p = 0.370). Among all patients, the difference in PFS between B3 thymoma and thymic carcinoma was not significant (11.3 vs. 10.1 months, p = 0.118). The squamous carcinoma subgroup did not exhibit any differences in PFS compared to B3 thymoma (11.7 vs. 11.3 months, p = 0.161). The result for the non-squamous carcinoma subgroup was similar (6.5 vs. 11.3 months, p = 0.128). Furthermore, the OS values for B3 thymoma and thymic carcinoma were not significantly different (58.3 vs. 35.1 months, p = 0.067). However, there were differences in OS between B3 thymoma and non-squamous carcinoma (58.3 vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.031). Conclusions: B3 thymoma and especially squamous carcinoma patients may be treated using a similar therapy scheme as that utilized for thymic carcinoma.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".