MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1854012091 · doi:10.1097/coc.0000000000000202

The Prognostic Significance of c-MET and EGFR Overexpression in Resected Gastric Adenocarcinomas

2015· article· en· W1854012091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aleksandra Paliga, Horia Marginean, Basile Tessier‐Cloutier, Bibianna Purgina, Derek J. Jonker, Esmeralda Celia Marginean

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineProportional hazards modelImmunohistochemistryEpidermal growth factor receptorUnivariate analysisPopulationC-MetCancerTissue microarrayOncologySurvival analysisMultivariate analysisGastroenterologyPathologyReceptorHepatocyte growth factorConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and c-MET are tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors implicated in gastric cancer (GC), and their pathways appear to be interdependent. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of EGFR and c-MET protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry in Canadian patients with resected GC and correlate it with clinicopathologic characteristics and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue microarray blocks were constructed from 120 resected GCs stained with EGFR and c-MET and scored semiquantitatively (0 to 3+). Each receptor's expression was compared with clinicopathologic characteristics and survival. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meyer, and Cox regression were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of the 113 interpretable cases, overexpression of EGFR and c-MET was noted in 17 (15%) and 65 (57%), respectively; coexpression of EGFR and c-MET was observed in 12 (10%) of GC. EGFR and c-MET overexpression correlated with poor OS: median 13 versus 30 months in EGFR positive versus negative GC (hazard ratio [HR]=1.67, P=0.11); 27 versus 49 months in c-MET positive versus negative GC (HR=1.17, P=0.49), respectively. GC coexpressing EGFR and c-MET was significantly correlated with poor survival: 12 versus 29 months in double-positive versus rest of tumors both in univariate (HR=2.62, P=0.003) and multivariate analyses (HR=2.58, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the prevalence and prognostic value of EGFR and c-MET in a Canadian population of patients undergoing curative intent resection for GC. Both c-MET and EGFR overexpression trended toward poor OS, but only the group with EGFR+/c-MET+ GC reached statistical significance on multivariate analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207