Searching Toward Pareto-Optimal Device-Aware Neural Architectures

Recent breakthroughs in Neural Architectural Search (NAS) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in many tasks such as image classification and language understanding. However, most existing works only optimize for model accuracy and largely ignore other important factors imposed by the underlying hardware and devices, such as latency and energy, when making inference. In this paper, we first introduce the problem of NAS and provide a survey on recent works. Then we deep dive into two recent advancements on extending NAS into multiple-objective frameworks: MONAS and DPP-Net. Both MONAS and DPP-Net are capable of optimizing accuracy and other objectives imposed by devices, searching for neural architectures that can be best deployed on a wide spectrum of devices: from embedded systems and mobile devices to workstations. Experimental results are poised to show that architectures found by MONAS and DPP-Net achieves Pareto optimality w.r.t the given objectives for various devices.Comment: ICCAD'18 Invited Pape

Analysis of the Effcacy and Safety of Amivantamab in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with EGFR/MET Gene Abnormalities: A Single Center’s Experience

Background and objective Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cellular-mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (c-Met) are widely expressed on cancer cells. There is a synergistic effect of EGFR and HGF/c-Met pathways on proliferation, downstream activation of signal transduction and an additive effect. Studies show that combination of both signaling pathways could potentially be targeted in a synergistic fashion. Amivantamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR and c-Met, yielded robust and durable responses in a variety of clinicals trials. However, few researches have reported its efficacy in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerance of Amivantamab in NSCLC patients with EGFR/MET gene abnormalities at Peking University Cancer Hospital. Methods The study enrolled NSCLC patients who received Amivantamab in our hospital between August 2020 and December 2021, and analyzed the response, survival, and treatment-related adverse events. Results Fifteen patients were enrolled in this research, and six of them received Amivantamab treatment and the other nine patients received Amivantamab plus Lazertinib treatment. The rates of partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 46.7% (7/15), 46.7% (7/15) and 6.7% (1/15), respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 28.6% (2/7) and 100.0% (7/7) in seven patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion, respectively. The ORR and DCR were 40.0% (2/5) and 100.0% (5/5) in five post-osimertinib EGFR-mutant patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash (86.7%), paronychia (80.0%), and infusion-related reactions (60.0%), and most of them were graded as 1 to 2. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events included rash (33.3%), alanine aminotransferase elevation (13.3%), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase elevation (13.3%), peripheral edema (6.7%), thromboembolism (6.7%), interstitial lung disease (6.7%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%). Conclusion Amivantamab was effective in Chinese NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion and post-Osimertinib EGFR-mutant patients, similar to the results of clinical trials conducted in western countries. Amivantamab was well tolerated and emphases should be put on adverse events such as rash, paronychia, and infusion-related reactions

Survival comparison of right and left side non‐small cell lung cancer in stage I–IIIA patients: A Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) analysis

Background Primary tumors located in the right and left side have distinctive prognoses, but the details have not been fully identified in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigated the impact of primary tumor side on long‐term survival in NSCLC patients. Methods Data of 90 407 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program were analyzed. To avoid bias between groups, we used innovative propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Results There was no significant distinction in overall survival (OS) between right (n = 53 496) and left (n = 36 911) side tumors (hazard ratio [HR] 0.993, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9756–1.011; P = 0.432). Left side was associated with superior five‐year cancer‐specific survival (CSS) compared to right side NSCLC (HR 0.977, 95% CI 0.9574–0.9969; P = 0.024). No significant difference was observed in OS (P = 0.689) or CSS (P = 0.288) after PSM analysis. In the 51 319 patients who underwent surgery, left side (n = 21 245) was associated with poor OS compared to right side (n = 30 074) NSCLC (HR 1.039, 95% CI 1.011–1.067; P = 0.006), while CSS was similar (HR 1.031, 95% CI 0.997–1.065; P = 0.069). In patients who underwent surgery, there was also no significant difference in OS (P = 0.986) or CSS (P = 0.979) after PSM analysis. Conclusion The prognosis between right and left side NSCLC in stage I–IIIA was similar regardless of whether patients underwent surgery. Primary tumor side cannot be considered a prognostic factor when choosing appropriate treatment