Treatment Outcomes From Erlotinib and Gefitinib in Advanced Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Mutated Nonsquamous Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in Aotearoa New Zealand From 2010 to 2020: Nationwide Whole-of-Patient-Population Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health care system-wide outcomes from routine treatment with erlotinib and gefitinib are incompletely understood. Objective: The aim of the study is to describe the effectiveness of erlotinib and gefitinib during the first decade of their routine use for treating advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the entire cohort of patients treated in Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods: Patients were identified, and data collated from national pharmaceutical dispensing, cancer registration, and mortality registration electronic databases by deterministic data linkage using National Health Index numbers. Time-to-treatment discontinuation and overall survival were measured from the date of first dispensing of erlotinib or gefitinib and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves. Associations of treatment outcomes with baseline factors were evaluated using univariable and multivariable Cox regressions. Results: Overall, 752 patients were included who started treatment with erlotinib (n=418) or gefitinib (n=334) before October 2020. Median time-to-treatment discontinuation was 11.6 (95% CI 10.8-12.4) months, and median overall survival was 20.1 (95% CI 18.1-21.6) months. Shorter time-to-treatment discontinuation was independently associated with high socioeconomic deprivation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5 compared to the New Zealand Index of Deprivation 1-4 group), EGFR L858R mutations (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6 compared to exon 19 deletion), and distant disease at cancer diagnosis (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.7 compared to localized or regional disease). The same factors were independently associated with shorter overall survival. Outcome estimates and predictors remained unchanged in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Outcomes from routine treatment with erlotinib and gefitinib in New Zealand patients with advanced EGFR-mutant nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer are comparable with those reported in randomized trials and other health care system-wide retrospective cohort studies. Socioeconomic status, EGFR mutation subtype, and disease extent at cancer diagnosis were independent predictors of treatment outcomes in that setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".