MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3034817922 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.05.051

A Multicenter, International Collaborative Study for American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging of Retinoblastoma

2020· article· en· W3034817922 sur OpenAlexaff
Ankit Singh Tomar, Paul T. Finger, Brenda Gallie, Ashwin Mallipatna, Tero Kivelä, Chengyue Zhang, Junyang Zhao, Matthew W. Wilson, Rachel C. Brenna, Michala Burges, Jonathan Kim, Vikas Khetan, Suganeswari Ganesan, А.А. Yarovoy, V.А. Yarovaya, Е.S. Kotova, Yacoub A. Yousef, Kalle Nummi, Tatiana L. Ushakova, Olga V. Yugay, V. G. Polyakov, Marco A. Ramírez‐Ortiz, Elizabeth Esparza-Aguiar, Guillermo Chantada, Paula Schaiquevich, Adriana Fandiño, Jason C. Yam, Winnie Lau, Carol P. Lam, Phillipa Sharwood, Sonia Moorthy, Quah Boon Long, Vera Adobea Essuman, Lorna Renner, Ekaterina A. Semenova, Jaume Català, Genoveva Correa-Llano, Elisa Carreras

Notice bibliographique

RevueOphthalmology · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOcular Oncology and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEnucleationRetinoblastomaBrachytherapyRadiation therapyExternal beam radiotherapySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

PurposeTo evaluate the ability of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition to predict local tumor control and globe salvage for children with retinoblastoma (RB).DesignInternational, multicenter, registry-based retrospective case series.ParticipantsA total of 2854 eyes of 2097 patients from 18 ophthalmic oncology centers from 13 countries over 6 continents.MethodsInternational, multicenter, registry-based data were pooled from patients enrolled between January 2001 and December 2013. All RB eyes with adequate records to allow tumor staging by the AJCC 8th edition criteria and follow-up to ascertain treatment outcomes were included.Main Outcome MeasuresGlobe-salvage rates were estimated by AJCC clinical (cTNMH) categories and tumor laterality. Local treatment failure was defined as use of enucleation or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), with or without plaque brachytherapy or intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC).ResultsUnilateral RB occurred in 1340 eyes (47%). Among the 2854 eyes, tumor categories were cT1 to cT4 in 696 eyes (24%), 1334 eyes (47%), 802 eyes (28%), and 22 eyes (1%), respectively. Of these, 1275 eyes (45%) were salvaged, and 1179 eyes (41%) and 400 eyes (14%) underwent primary and secondary enucleation, respectively. The 2- and 5-year Kaplan–Meier cumulative globe-salvage rates without the use of EBRT by cTNMH categories were 97% and 96% for category cT1a tumors, 94% and 88% for cT1b tumors, 68% and 60% for cT2a tumors, 66% and 57% for cT2b tumors, and 32% and 25% for cT3 tumors, respectively. Risk of local treatment failure increased with increasing cT category (P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis confirmed a higher risk of local treatment failure in categories cT1b (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5; P = 0.004), cT2a (HR, 15.1; P < 0.001), cT2b (HR, 16.4; P < 0.001), and cT3 (HR, 45.0; P < 0.001) compared with category cT1a. Use of plaque brachytherapy and IAC improved local tumor control in categories cT1a (P = 0.031) and cT1b (P < 0.001).ConclusionsMulticenter, international, internet-based data sharing validated the 8th edition AJCC RB staging to predict globe-salvage in a large, heterogeneous, real-world patient population with RB. To evaluate the ability of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition to predict local tumor control and globe salvage for children with retinoblastoma (RB). International, multicenter, registry-based retrospective case series. A total of 2854 eyes of 2097 patients from 18 ophthalmic oncology centers from 13 countries over 6 continents. International, multicenter, registry-based data were pooled from patients enrolled between January 2001 and December 2013. All RB eyes with adequate records to allow tumor staging by the AJCC 8th edition criteria and follow-up to ascertain treatment outcomes were included. Globe-salvage rates were estimated by AJCC clinical (cTNMH) categories and tumor laterality. Local treatment failure was defined as use of enucleation or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), with or without plaque brachytherapy or intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC). Unilateral RB occurred in 1340 eyes (47%). Among the 2854 eyes, tumor categories were cT1 to cT4 in 696 eyes (24%), 1334 eyes (47%), 802 eyes (28%), and 22 eyes (1%), respectively. Of these, 1275 eyes (45%) were salvaged, and 1179 eyes (41%) and 400 eyes (14%) underwent primary and secondary enucleation, respectively. The 2- and 5-year Kaplan–Meier cumulative globe-salvage rates without the use of EBRT by cTNMH categories were 97% and 96% for category cT1a tumors, 94% and 88% for cT1b tumors, 68% and 60% for cT2a tumors, 66% and 57% for cT2b tumors, and 32% and 25% for cT3 tumors, respectively. Risk of local treatment failure increased with increasing cT category (P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis confirmed a higher risk of local treatment failure in categories cT1b (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5; P = 0.004), cT2a (HR, 15.1; P < 0.001), cT2b (HR, 16.4; P < 0.001), and cT3 (HR, 45.0; P < 0.001) compared with category cT1a. Use of plaque brachytherapy and IAC improved local tumor control in categories cT1a (P = 0.031) and cT1b (P < 0.001). Multicenter, international, internet-based data sharing validated the 8th edition AJCC RB staging to predict globe-salvage in a large, heterogeneous, real-world patient population with RB.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,048
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,360

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,385
Écart entre enseignants0,332 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations61
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOphthalmologyMême sujetOcular Oncology and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207