MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403099656 · doi:10.1080/14796694.2024.2406117

Plain language summary: 5-year results from the CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer

2024· article· en· W4403099656 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Solomon, Geoffrey Liu, Enriqueta Felip, Tony Mok, Ross A. Soo, Julien Mazières, Alice T. Shaw, Filippo de Marinis, Yasushi Goto, Yi‐Long Wu, Dong‐Wan Kim, Jean-François Martini, Rossella Messina, Jolanda Paolini, Anna Polli, Despina Thomaidou, Francesca Toffalorio, Todd M. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersBeiGeneGlaxoSmithKlineAmgenPfizerGenentechAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsCrizotinibMedicineLung cancerCrown (dentistry)Internal medicineOncologyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryWhat is this study about? This is a summary of the results of an ongoing study called CROWN. In the CROWN study, researchers looked at the effects of two medicines called lorlatinib (Lorbrena) and crizotinib (Xalkori) for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not been treated yet. Everyone in the study had changes in a gene called anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK, in their cancer cells. The changes in the ALK gene can make cancer grow. This analysis looked at how well lorlatinib and crizotinib worked and their side effects in people with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC after 5 years.What did this study find? After observing people for an average of 5 years, researchers found that more people who took lorlatinib were still alive without their cancer getting worse than the people who took crizotinib. At 5 years, the probability of being alive without their cancer getting worse was 60% in people who took lorlatinib compared with 8% in people who took crizotinib. Fewer people who took lorlatinib had their cancer spread within or to the brain than the people who took crizotinib. In more than half of the people who took lorlatinib, tumors that had spread to the brain did not get worse, and no new tumors spread to the brain after 5 years. In contrast, in about half of the people who took crizotinib, tumors that had spread to the brain got worse or new tumors spread to the brain after 16.4 months. More people who took lorlatinib (115 out of 149, or 77%) had severe or life-threatening side effects than people who took crizotinib (81 out of 142, or 57%). These side effects were like the ones reported in the earlier 3-year analysis.What do the findings of the study mean? The 5-year results from the CROWN study showed that more people who took lorlatinib continued to benefit from their treatment than those who took crizotinib. The 5-year benefit of lorlatinib in people with ALK-positive NSCLC has never been seen before.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03052608 (Phase 3 CROWN study) (ClinicalTrials.gov)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.015

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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