MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405363665 · doi:10.1101/2024.02.22.24302979

Determining Line of Therapy from Real-World Data in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

2024· preprint· en· W4405363665 on OpenAlexaff
Connor B. Grady, Wei‐Ting Hwang, Joshua E. Reuss, Wade T. Iams, Amanda Cass, Geoffrey Liu, Devalben Patel, Stephen V. Liu, Gabriela Liliana Bravo Montenegro, Tejas Patil, Jorgé Nieva, Amanda Herrmann, Kristen A. Marrone, Vincent K. Lam, William Schwartzman, Jonathan E. Dowell, Liza C. Villaruz, Kelsey Leigh Miller, Jared Weiss, Fangdi Sun, Vamsidhar Velcheti, D. Ross Camidge, Charu Aggarwal, Lova Sun, Melina E. Marmarelis

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersSanofi GenzymeGenentechShionogiRegeneron PharmaceuticalsNateraMacroGenicsPfizerIncyteBeiGeneMirati TherapeuticsAstraZenecaNovocureEisaiJazz PharmaceuticalsPuma BiotechnologyDaiichi Sankyo EuropeGilead SciencesSanofiCelgeneEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbSeagenLUNGevity FoundationAmgenJohns Hopkins UniversityMesothelioma Applied Research Foundation
KeywordsLung cancerLine (geometry)MedicineOncologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. Key Points Use of targeted therapy to treat patients with mNSCLC is growing Determining lines of therapy from real-world data is crucial for clinical research Our rules aim to advance the line of therapy to reflect changes in clinical status Using these rules can lead to better method harmonization in mNSCLC research

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→