Secondary Analysis of the Rate of Second Primary Lung Cancer From Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) Trial of Lobar Versus Sublobar Resection for T1aN0 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo curative surgical resection are at risk for developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) was a multicenter, international, randomized, phase III trial in patients with stage T1aN0 NSCLC (using the TNM staging system seventh edition) and demonstrated the noninferiority for disease-free survival between sublobar resection (SLR) and lobar resection (LR). After surgery, patients underwent computed tomography surveillance as defined by the protocol. The determination of a SPLC was done by the treating physician and recorded in the study database. We performed an analysis of the rate of SPLC (per patient per year) and the 5-year cumulative incidence in the study population and within the SLR and LR arms. Median follow-up was 7 years. The rate per patient per year in the study population, in the SLR arm, and in the LR arm was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.1), 3.8% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.9), and 3.1% (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.1), respectively. The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of SPLC in the study population, SLR arm, and LR arm was 15.9% (95% CI, 12.9 to 18.9), 17.2% (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.5), and 14.7% (95% CI, 10.6 to 18.7), respectively.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".