Variations in Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient outcomes based on treatment center volume.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e18530 Background: Due to their rarity and requirement for multi-modality care, evidence suggests (and guidelines recommend) patients (pts) with Ewing Sarcoma (ES) and rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) treated at high volume centres (HVC) with multidisciplinary tumour board discussions (MTDs) have improved outcomes. However, access to care at HVC is challenging for pts who live remotely, such as many pts in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Our study explores the difference in outcomes of patients with ES and RMS based on location of diagnosis and treatment in BC. Methods: A multi-center retrospective chart review of adults diagnosed with ES and RMS Jan 1st 2000 to Dec 31st 2020 was performed for pts undergoing curative intent therapy at one of six provincial cancer centers. All pts underwent expert pathology review. Descriptive statistics were performed. Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests were used to evaluate associations. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess for predictors of better survival outcomes by treatment centre. HVCs was defined as those that saw ≥15 patients. Results: 77 patients were included in this analysis; 46 (60%) and 31 (40%) were treated at HVC and LVC respectively. By HVC and LVC respectively, mean age was 36 and 35, 14 (45%) and 20 (43%) were female, 23 (74%) and 26 (57%) had ES, and 11 (35%) and nine (20%) had localized disease. Pts treated at HVCs were more likely to: receive curative intent radiation (p = 0.006), be presented at MTDs (p = 0.042), and less likely to experience disease progression on fist line therapy (p = 0.04) (Table). Time from biopsy to start of chemotherapy (chemo) was 13 days sooner at HVCs vs LVCs (34 vs 47 days, p = 0.12). Initial chemo regimen (p = 0.25) and surgical treatment (p = 0.75) were not significantly different between HVCs vs LVCs. Age, ECOG, stage, and Charlson Comorbidities Index (CCI) were all significant contributors to overall survival (OS). There was no statistically significant difference in OS by treatment center (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 – 1.29). Conclusions: Variations in care exist for both treatment and outcomes amongst ES and RMS pts treated at HVC vs LVC in BC. Pts treated at HVCs were more likely to be presented at MTDs, to receive curative intent radiation, and less likely to experience disease progression. This may reflect differences in access to resources, sarcoma-specific clinician specialists, and familiarity with upfront aggressive treatment protocols. This study can be used to better inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of curable ES and RMS patients.[Table: see text]
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».