Progress by international collaboration for pediatric renal tumors by HARMONIsation and Collaboration: the HARMONICA initiative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionSince the initial attempts to treat children with renal cancer over 50 years ago, outcome for children with renal cancer has generally become promising. While the first endeavors mainly included surgical treatment, in the early 60s radiotherapy and chemotherapy were introduced, leading to cure of patients, including some with metastatic disease. (1) Since then, overall survival rates for the most common type of renal tumors in childhood (nephroblastoma or Wilms tumor) have improved to more than 90 percent. These excellent treatment outcomes are similar in the 2 largest clinical trial groups (the Children’s Oncology Group Renal Tumor Committee (COG-RTC; former National Wilms Tumor Study Group (NTWSG)), and the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Renal Tumor Study Group (SIOP-RTSG). Despite the difference in upfront treatment choice (primary surgery when feasible (COG-RTC) or preoperative chemotherapy (SIOP-RTSG)) both groups have optimized the stratification of patients in their trials by modifying the intensity of treatment according to individual risk factors, in order to improve outcome for high-risk renal tumor types, but also to reduce early and late toxicity in lower and intermediate risk tumors as much as possible. (2-4)This improvement in risk stratification has resulted in better outcomes and less cancer related toxicity. However, for remaining small subgroups of pediatric renal tumor patients, with very poor outcomes, further understanding of the underlying biology, in correlation with clinic-pathological characteristics, is an unmet need. Further, standard multidisciplinary treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) can be challenging to access and/or deliver in some low and middle income countries (LMIC). The power inherent in international collaboration to address these challenges was a driving principle that supported the creation of the HARMONICA (HARMONIzation and COllaboration) initiative in 2015, when we established an organized collaborative structure for transatlantic experts from COG-RTC and SIOP-RTSG. The mandate of HARMONICA is to identify specific challenges for pediatric renal tumor subsets in order to meet the aims of our global approach to cure every child with a renal tumor with limited toxicity.The HARMONICA group meets at least once a month by videoconferences, and as much as possible also face to face, at least once or twice a year, during existing pediatric cancer conferences. In addition, several transatlantic HARMONICA expert subgroups are collaborating on specific topics. All work is currently done by a tremendous engagement of many enthusiastic members of both study groups. Despite the fact of obvious advantages, HARMONICA is still lacking funding and needs to optimize their structure as a legal entity. Notwithstanding such limitations, in this special issue of PBC, we present the achievements, the challenges, and the future perspectives, identified by these expert groups.
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 | 0,082 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,010 |
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 ».