Determining Line of Therapy from Real‐World Data in Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Determining lines of therapy (LOT) using real-world data is crucial to inform clinical decisions and support clinical research. Existing rules for determining LOT in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) do not incorporate the growing number of targeted therapies used in treatment today. Therefore, we propose rules for determining LOT from real-world data of patients with mNSCLC treated with targeted therapies. METHODS: LOT rules were developed through expert consensus using a real-world cohort of 550 patients with ALK+ or ROS1+ mNSCLC in the multi-institutional, electronic medical record-based Academic Thoracic Oncology Medical Investigators Consortium's (ATOMIC) Driver Mutation Registry. Rules were subsequently modified based on a review of appropriate LOT determination. These resulting rules were then applied to an independent cohort of patients with EGFR+ mNSCLC to illustrate their use. RESULTS: Six rules for determining LOTs were developed. Among 1133 patients with EGFR mutations and mNSCLC, a total of 3168 regimens were recorded with a median of 2 regimens per patient (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-13). After applying our rules, there were 2834 total LOTs with a median of 2 LOTs per patient (IQR, 1-3; range, 1-11). Rules 1-3 kept 11% of regimen changes from advancing the LOT. When compared to previously published rules, LOT assignments differed 5.7% of the time, mostly in LOTs with targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: These rules provide an updated framework to evaluate current treatment patterns, accounting for the increased use of targeted therapies in patients with mNSCLC, and promote standardization of methods for determining LOT from real-world data.
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 | 0.031 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".