MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic role of ECOG performance status in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: an international study

2011· article· en· W1578330188 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Ignacio Martínez‐Salamanca, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Joaquı́n Carballido, Thomas Chromecki, Vincenzo Ficarra, Hans‐Martin Fritsche, Wassim Kassouf, Kazumasa Matsumoto, Lucia Osorio Cabello, Christian Seitz, Stefan Tritschler, Thomas J. Walton, Filiberto Zattoni, Giacomo Novara

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioCohortProportional hazards modelInternal medicineLogistic regressionPerformance statusUpper urinary tractOncologyRetrospective cohort studyUrinary systemCancerUrothelial carcinomaUrologyBladder cancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Prognosis (inception cohort series) Level of Evidence 2a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? ECOG Performance Status has gained wide popularity as an integral part of the assessment of patients with upper urinary tract carcinoma. Our findings indicate that ECOG‐PS is strongly associated with perioperative and overall survival and should be considered carefully in our decision‐making process. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the prognostic role of ECOG Performance status (ECOG‐PS) in a large multi‐institutional international cohort of patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data of 427 patients treated with radical nephroureterectomy at five international institutions in Asia, Europe and Northern America were collected retrospectively from 1987 to 2008. Logistic and Cox regression models were used for univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS ECOG‐PS was 0 in 272 of 427 (64%) patients. The median follow‐up of the whole cohort was 32 months. The five‐year recurrence‐free (RFS), cancer‐specific (CSS) and overall (OS) survival estimates were 71.7%, 74.9% and 68.5%, respectively, in patients with ECOG‐PS 0 compared with 60.1%, 67.8%, and 51.4% respectively, in patients with ECOG‐PS ≥1 ( P value 0.08 for RFS, 0.43 for CSS, and <0.001 for OS, respectively). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, ECOG‐PS was not an independent predictor of either RFS (hazard ratio 1.4; P = 0.107) or CSS (hazard ratio 1.2; P = 0.426) but was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 1.5; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS In this large multicentre international study, ECOG‐PS was not significantly associated with RFS and CSS. Conversely we find a strong association with survival 1‐month after surgery and OS. Further research is needed to ascertain the additive prognostic role of ECOG‐PS in well‐designed prospective multicentre studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207