Treatment of relapsed small cell lung cancer in the real-world: A comparison of platinum-etoposide rechallenge and cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine (CAV) chemotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20123 Background: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy, representing 15% of all diagnosed lung cancers. Initial therapy involves platinum-based chemotherapy, with recent evidence supporting the addition of immunotherapy. Despite excellent initial response to treatment, relapses are common and there is little prospective evidence available to guide second-line therapy. Depending on response to the previous regimen, second-line treatment can involve platinum-etoposide (PE) re-challenge or other therapies including CAV (cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine), topotecan, taxanes, or immunotherapy. Methods: We reviewed all patients diagnosed with SCLC at the Ottawa Hospital from January 2014 – December 2021, and identified those treated with second-line systemic therapy. Baseline demographics, diagnostic, and treatment information were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival compared between platinum-etoposide re-challenge and CAV. Results: During the study period, 680 patients were diagnosed with SCLC, 521(76%) received first-line systemic therapy, and 161/521 (31%) went on to receive second-line systemic therapy. Baseline characteristics at initial diagnosis of this second-line cohort: median age 64, 93 (58%) female, 156 (97%) former/current smoking history, 156 (97%) extensive-stage. First-line treatment was almost exclusively platinum-based (n = 154, 96%). At the time of second-line therapy: 105 (69%) had ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, and 103 (64%) had chemosensitive disease with a treatment-free interval (TFI) > 90 days. Second-line regimens included platinum-etoposide (n =64, 43%), CAV (n =67, 41%), platinum-irinotecan (n =3, 2%), docetaxel (n =10, 6%), and other (n =12, 7%). Median overall survival from the start of second line chemotherapy was 5.7 months (95% CI 5.0-6.4). Comparing patients who received PE-re-challenge versus CAV, there were no significant differences in age, sex, smoking history, or stage at diagnosis. Patients receiving CAV were more likely to have a lower performance status (ECOG >2: 40% versus 23%, p = 0.04) have a TFI < 180 days (81% vs 62%, p = 0.002). PE chemotherapy led to higher physician-assessed clinical benefit (83% vs 55%, p < 0.001) and median overall survival (7.3 (95% CI 5.7 – 8.8) versus 4.1 (95% CI 2.8 – 5.4 months), p < 0.001) compared to those receiving CAV. In a sensitivity analysis for patients with TFI < 180 days, PE-re-challenge had a higher mOS than CAV (6.2 (95% CI 5.1-7.2) versus 4.1 (95% CI 3.0 - 5.2), p < 0.003). Conclusions: Patients who receive second-line systemic therapy for relapsed SCLC represent a small subset of the overall SCLC patient population. In this real-world study, platinum-etoposide re-challenge appeared to offer benefit over CAV, even in patients with PFI < 180 days.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".