Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Stage T1-2N0M0 Small Cell Lung Cancer Undergoing Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to delineate the treatment modalities and survival outcomes in patients with stage T1-2N0M0 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) who underwent surgery. Methods: SCLC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results databases between 2000 and 2020 were investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was employed to assess cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) across diverse therapeutic strategies. Results: The study included 190 patients. Treatment modalities included surgery alone in 65 patients (34.2%), surgery + chemotherapy in 70 patients (36.8%), surgery + radiotherapy in three patients (1.6%), and surgery + chemoradiotherapy in 52 patients (27.4%). The median CSS remained undetermined for the surgery alone group, whereas it was 123 and 113 months for the surgery + chemotherapy and surgery + chemoradiotherapy groups. Median OS was 47, 84, and 50 months for these groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that patients receiving surgery + chemotherapy exhibited a significantly enhanced OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38 - 0.94; P = 0.028) compared to those undergoing surgery alone. However, the integration of radiotherapy did not improve OS compared to surgery alone (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.44 - 1.15; P = 0.170). Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS compared to surgery alone. However, the addition of radiotherapy did not prolong OS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".