MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tumor Type and Substage Predict Survival in Stage I and II Ovarian Carcinoma: Insights and Implications

2010· article· en· W2000441479 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Köbel, Steve E. Kalloger, Jennifer L. Santos, David G. Huntsman, C. Blake Gilks, Kenneth D. Swenerton

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSerous fluidGrading (engineering)OncologySerous carcinomaOvarian cancerInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Univariate analysisOvarian carcinomaDiseasePopulationClear cellAdjuvant therapyMultivariate analysisCarcinomaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor grade has been the most accepted prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival among women with stage I and II ovarian carcinomas. Many investigators have included stage IB, grade 1 at diagnosis as low-risk disease and have suggested that women in this category should not receive adjuvant therapy. However, grading assignment appears to be unreliable because of problems with reproducibility and lack of consideration of biological differences between the different tumor types. Some investigators believe that classification based on tumor typing using new histopathological criteria was more reproducible than grade assignment and would more accurately reflect biological differences. This population-based cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of updated tumor type to predict outcome for patients with low-stage ovarian carcinoma at low risk of death. Between 1984 and 2003, 1326 women with a diagnosis of stage I–II ovarian carcinoma were referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Of these, 652 (49%) were available for full slide review. Type and grade were assessed using contemporary histopathological criteria. Tumor types investigated accounting for 98% of ovarian carcinomas included high-grade serous, endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous, and low-grade serous. Of the 630 cases confirmed as ovarian carcinomas, 25 were rare types and were excluded, leaving 605 cases available for the final analysis. Outcomes among different subtypes were assessed using univariate models and recursive partitioning analysis. An excellent outcome (low risk of death) was defined as a disease-specific survival at 10 years (DSS10y) ≥95%. There was an excellent outcome in 77 cases with ovarian carcinomas of endometrioid and mucinous type, stage IA or IB. The outcome for high-grade serous carcinomas was poor (DSS10y = 57%); no subset could be identified with an excellent outcome. Although no subsets of clear cell carcinomas had an excellent outcome, a small group of patients with stage IA or IB tumors had a more favorable outcome (DSS10y = 87%) compared to those with stage IC–II (DSS10y = 66%). These findings indicate that tumor type is superior to grade in identifying the risk of death from ovarian carcinoma among women with stage I/II disease. Classification of all stage IA or IB endometrioid and mucinous ovarian carcinomas at time of presentation as low-risk would allow the proportion of patients for which adjuvant treatment could be avoided to be increased from 6.5% to 12.2%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207