MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378619207 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30060405

Afatinib for the Treatment of NSCLC with Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Narrative Review

2023· review· en· W4378619207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yingying Jiang, Xiaoxu Fang, Yan Xiang, Tingwen Fang, Jingwen Liu, Kaihua Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAfatinibMedicineT790MEpidermal growth factor receptorLung cancerOncologyInternal medicineErlotinibEGFR inhibitorsCancer researchERBB3CancerGefitinib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Afatinib, the world's first irreversible ErbB family (containing four different cancer cell epidermal growth factor receptors, including EGFR, HER2, ErbB3, and ErbB4) inhibitor, is a second-generation oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). It can be used as a first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an EGFR-sensitive mutation or for patients with locally advanced or metastatic squamous lung cancer whose disease progresses during or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Currently, with the use of third-generation EGFR-TKIs, afatinib is no longer clinically indicated as the first choice for patients with NSCLC who have EGFR-sensitive mutations. However, afatinib showed a considerable inhibitory effect in NSCLC patients with uncommon EGFR mutations (G719X, S768I, and L861Q) according to a combined post hoc analysis of the LUX-Lung2/3/6 trials. With the development of genetic testing technology, the detection rate of uncommon EGFR mutations is increasing. The aim of this paper is to describe in detail the sensitivity of rare EGFR mutations to afatinib and to provide information and a reference for those suffering from advanced NSCLC who have uncommon EGFR mutations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207