Application of the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification to the Nova Scotia population of patients with germ cell tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification(IGCCC) is the internationally accepted, clinically based prognosticclassification used to assist in the management and research ofmetastatic germ cell tumours (GCTs). The goal of this study wasto determine whether the IGCCC is applicable to a populationbasedcohort.Methods: We completed a retrospective chart review of patientswho received diagnoses of GCT in Nova Scotia between 1984and 2004 and who received treatment with platin-based chemotherapyfor metastatic disease. We assigned the IGCCC to eachpatient based on the site of the primary lesion, the presence orabsence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases and prechemotherapytumour marker values. We calculated Kaplan–Meier estimatesof 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival foreach IGCCC group.Results: The study cohort comprised 129 patients. The distributionand outcomes in each group of patients in Nova Scotia was similarto that published in the IGCCC. Among patients with nonseminomaGCTs (NSGCT) 61% had good, 22% had intermediate and17% had poor prognoses. Among those with seminomas, 85% hadgood and 15% had intermediate prognoses. Among patientswith NSGCTs, the 5-year PFS was 90%, 69% and 55%, and the5-year overall survival was 94%, 84%, 61% in the good, intermediate,and poor prognostic categories respectively. Amongpatients with seminomas, the 5-year PFS was 95% and 50% andthe 5-year overall survival was 94% and 50% in the good and intermediateprognostic categories, respectively.Conclusion: The IGCCC seems applicable to a population-basedcohort, with similar distribution of categories and clear prognosticability.Contexte : L’IGCCC (International Germ Cell Consensus Classification)est un système de classification pronostique mondialementreconnu, basé sur les données cliniques et utilisé pour faciliterla prise en charge des tumeurs germinales métastatiques et larecherche sur ces tumeurs. Le but de la présente étude était de déterminersi cette classification s’applique à une cohorte de population.Méthodologie : On a mené une étude rétrospective par examen dedossiers de patients ayant reçu un diagnostic de tumeur germinaleen Nouvelle-Écosse entre 1984 et 2004 et traités par chimiothérapieantimétastatique à base de platine. On a classé les patients selonl’IGCCC en fonction du siège de la tumeur primitive, de la présenceou de l’absence de métastases viscérales non pulmonaires et desvaleurs des marqueurs tumoraux avant la chimiothérapie. La surviesans progression de la maladie (SSP) et la survie globale (SG)sur 5 ans pour chaque groupe formé en fonction de l’IGCCC ontété évaluées par la méthode de Kaplan-Meier.Résultats : La cohorte étudiée comptait 129 patients. La distributionet l’issue du traitement étaient similaires pour tous lespatients à celles publiées dans la classification IGCCC. Chez lespatients avec tumeurs germinales non séminomateuses, 61 %avaient un pronostic favorable, 22 % un pronostic moyen et 17 %un pronostic médiocre. Chez les patients avec tumeurs séminomateuses,85 % avaient un pronostic favorable et 15 % un pronosticmoyen. Chez les patients avec tumeurs germinales non séminomateuses,la SSP après 5 ans était de 90 %, 69 % et 55 % etla survie globale après 5 ans était de 94 %, 84 % et 61 % en fonctionde pronostiques favorable, moyen et médiocre, respectivement.Chez les patients avec tumeurs séminomateuses, la SSP après 5 ansétait de 95 % et 50% et la survie globale après 5 ans était de94 % et 50 % en fonction de ces mêmes catégories pronostiques.Conclusion : L’IGCCC semble bien s’appliquer à une cohorte depopulation; la distribution entre les classes est similaire, et la capacitépronostique est très bonne.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".