Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40497643›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2025

Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Testing Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States: Predictive Modeling Using Machine Learning Methods.

Alan James Michael Brnabic, Ilya Lipkovich, Zbigniew Kadziola, Dan He, Peter M Krein, Lisa M Hess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alan James Michael BrnabicEli Lilly and Company, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4303-2515
Ilya LipkovichEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1936-2197
Zbigniew KadziolaEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7932-753X
Dan HeSyneos Health, Morrisville, NC, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-5596-1719
Peter M KreinEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-0655-4023
Lisa M HessEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3631-3941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing (NGS) has become a cornerstone of treatment for lung cancer and is recommended in current treatment guidelines for patients with advanced or metastatic disease.

objectiveThis study was designed to use machine learning methods to determine demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that may predict likelihood of receiving NGS-based testing (ever vs never NGS-tested) as well as likelihood of timing of testing (early vs late NGS-tested).

methodsDeidentified patient-level data were analyzed in this study from a real-world cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC in the United States. Patients with nonsquamous disease, who received systemic therapy for NSCLC, and had at least 3 months of follow-up data for analysis were included in this study. Three strategies, logistic regression models, penalized logistic regression using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalty, and extreme gradient boosting with classification trees as base learners, were used to identify predictors of ever versus never and early versus late NGS testing. Data were split into D1 (training+validation; 80%) and D2 (testing; 20%) sets; the 3 strategies were evaluated by comparing their performance on multiple m=1000 splits in the training (70%) and validation data (30%) within the D1 set. The final model was selected by evaluating performance using the area under the receiver operating curve while taking into account considerations of simplicity and clinical interpretability. Performance was re-estimated using the test data D2.

resultsA total of 13,425 met the criteria for the ever NGS-tested, and 17,982 were included in the never NGS-tested group. Performance metrics showed the area under the receiver operating curve evaluated from validation data was similar across all models (77%-84%). Among those in the ever NGS-tested group, 84.08% (n=11,289) were early NGS-tested, and 15.91% (n=2136) late NGS-tested. Factors associated with both ever having NGS testing as well as early NGS testing included later year of NSCLC diagnosis, no smoking history, and evidence of programmed death ligand 1 testing (all P<.05). Factors associated with a greater chance of never receiving NGS testing included older age, lower performance status, Black race, higher number of single-gene tests, public insurance, and treatment in a geography with Molecular Diagnostics Services Program adoption (all P<.05).

conclusionsPredictors of ever versus never as well as early versus late NGS testing in the setting of advanced or metastatic NSCLC were consistent across machine learning methods in this study, demonstrating the ability of these models to identify factors that may predict NGS-based testing. There is a need to ensure that patients regardless of age, race, insurance status, and geography (factors associated with lower odds of receiving NGS testing in this study) are provided with equitable access to NGS-based testing.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingLung NeoplasmsMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesBiomarkers, Tumorartificial intelligencebiomarkerslung cancermachine learningnext-generation sequencingNGS testingoncologypredictive modelingreal-world datatreatment guidelinestumor biomarker

Identifiers

PMID40497643
PMCPMC12198702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.