MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4360605583 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000003279.03

MP41-03 IS A RENAL TUMOUR BENIGN OR MALIGNANT? A PREDICTION TOOL INCLUDING PATIENTS MANAGED WITH SURGERY, ABLATION, OR SURVEILLANCE

2023· article· en· W4360605583 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ameeta L. Nayak, Luke T. Lavallée, Ranjeeta Mallick, Simon Tanguay, Frédéric Pouliot, Antonio Finelli, Anil Kapoor, Ricardo Rendon, Alan So, Darrel Drachenberg, Bimal Bhindi, Jean‐Baptiste Lattouf, Lucas Dean, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Lori Wood, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Rodney H. Breau

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMalignancyTumor ablationGeneral surgeryAblationPathologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP41-03 IS A RENAL TUMOUR BENIGN OR MALIGNANT? A PREDICTION TOOL INCLUDING PATIENTS MANAGED WITH SURGERY, ABLATION, OR SURVEILLANCE Ameeta Nayak, Luke Lavallee, Ranjeeta Mallick, Simon Tanguay, Frederic Pouliot, Antonio Finelli, Anil Kapoor, Ricardo Rendon, Alan So, Darrel Drachenberg, Bimal Bhindi, Jean-Baptiste Lattouf, Lucas Dean, Aly-Khan Lalani, Lori Wood, Daniel Heng, and Rodney Breau Ameeta NayakAmeeta Nayak More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , Simon TanguaySimon Tanguay More articles by this author , Frederic PouliotFrederic Pouliot More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor More articles by this author , Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon More articles by this author , Alan SoAlan So More articles by this author , Darrel DrachenbergDarrel Drachenberg More articles by this author , Bimal BhindiBimal Bhindi More articles by this author , Jean-Baptiste LattoufJean-Baptiste Lattouf More articles by this author , Lucas DeanLucas Dean More articles by this author , Aly-Khan LalaniAly-Khan Lalani More articles by this author , Lori WoodLori Wood More articles by this author , Daniel HengDaniel Heng More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003279.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Many kidney tumors are benign and some malignant tumors behave in an indolent fashion. We sought to develop predictive models of kidney tumor malignancy and high-grade malignancy. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with solitary renal masses were identified from the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). Specifically, we identified patients with clinical stage T1 and T2 disease. Demographic, clinical, and imaging data were compared to the pathologic diagnosis from surgery or biopsy. Tumors were categorized as malignant or benign, and aggressive (high-grade malignant) or indolent (low-grade malignant and benign). Logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors of each category. Nomograms were created using statistically significant risk factors and were internally validated using bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Of 5,517 CKCis patients with a solitary tumor between January 2011 and October 2022, 5,054 (92%) had malignant histology and 1,953 (40%) had high-grade disease. Factors associated with malignancy and high-grade malignancy were male sex (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.77; OR 1.65, 95%CI 1.44-1.89, respectively) and tumor size (OR 1.27, 95%CI 1.20-1.33; OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.25-1.31, per increase in 1cm, respectively). An interaction between age and sex was identified for malignancy; odds of malignancy statistically decrease with older age in men and increase (though not significantly) with age in women (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.84-0.95; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.95-1.07, respectively). Older age was predictive of high-grade malignancy (OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.03-1.09, per increase in 5 years). The nomograms for malignant/benign tumors had moderate discrimination and excellent calibration (optimism corrected area under the curve [AUC]= 0.69, root mean square error [RSME]=0.02, calibration slope=0.99). The nomogram for aggressive/indolent tumors had good discrimination and excellent calibration (AUC=0.75, RSME=0.01, calibration slope=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Patient and tumor characteristics are independently associated with cancer risk and high grade-cancer risk. The CKCis nomograms presented should be externally validated. These prediction tools can be used by physicians and patients with kidney tumors to help determine an optimal management plan. Source of Funding: No direct role or influence by sponsors. The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) is funded by the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada which receives funding support from industry sponsors. © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e555 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ameeta Nayak More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author Simon Tanguay More articles by this author Frederic Pouliot More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Anil Kapoor More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Alan So More articles by this author Darrel Drachenberg More articles by this author Bimal Bhindi More articles by this author Jean-Baptiste Lattouf More articles by this author Lucas Dean More articles by this author Aly-Khan Lalani More articles by this author Lori Wood More articles by this author Daniel Heng More articles by this author Rodney Breau More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,039
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,132

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0390,012

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 Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetOrgan Donation and TransplantationTravaux en français237 207