MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054893093 · doi:10.1158/1940-6207.prev-08-b55

Abstract B55: Factors predicting the progression of premalignant bronchial lesions

2008· article· en· W2054893093 on OpenAlexaff
Vijay Jayaprakash, Gregory Loewen, Kirsten B. Moysich, Sai Yendamuri, Alan D. Hutson, Ravi Menezes, Mary E. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysplasiaLung cancerCarcinoma in situCancerOdds ratioInternal medicineMetaplasiaGastroenterologyConfidence intervalHazard ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract B55 Background Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer death in the world. Metaplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma in situ (CIS) have been identified as precursors to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of lung. However, the natural history of these lesions and the risk factors related to their progression has not yet been clearly described. Methods The cohort included 412 high risk patients who underwent screening autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB) at the Lung Cancer Screening Clinic at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. Follow up AFB procedures were performed on 124 patients (average 2.6 AFB/ patient), and 335 baseline lesions (134 benign, 144 metaplasia and 57 dysplasia) were followed up for an average of 16 months after their first AFB. Development of a CIS/SCC was considered to be an endpoint; otherwise patients were followed till March, 2008. Results Fourty one percent (55/134) of benign lesions progressed to higher grade lesions (46 to metaplasia and 9 to dysplasia). Among metaplasia, 46% regressed, while 38% persisted, 14.6% (21/144) progressed to dysplasia and 1.4% (2/144) progressed to CIS/SCC. Among dysplasia, 31% regressed to benign, 37% regressed to metaplasia, 30% (17/57) persisted and 1.8% (1/57) progressed to CIS/SCC. Adjusted logistic regression was used to examine the risk factors for progression of lesions. Baseline benign lesions in males had more than 3 times greater chance of progressing compared to females [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.25-8.25, p value: 0.02]; after adjusting for age, pack years of smoking and COPD history. Benign lesions identified on former smokers had almost 3 times the risk of progressing (AOR: 2.97, 95%CI: 0.26-34.2) and benign lesions on current smokers had more than 8 times the risk of progressing (AOR: 8.22, 95%CI: 0.70-96.0), compared to never smokers (p trend: 0.008). Heavier smokers were at a greater risk of their lesions progressing. In patients with >50 pack years of smoking, benign lesions had 7 times greater risk (AOR: 7.70, 95%CI: 0.57-99.8), and metaplastic lesions had 3 times greater risk of progressing (AOR: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.40-8.76), compared to never smokers. However, similar increased risk estimates were not noted for dysplasias in patients with >50 pack year of smoking (AOR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.09-7.14). All the smoking risk estimates were adjusted for age, gender and COPD history. COPD was associated with 4 times the risk of benign lesions progressing (AOR: 4.42, 95%CI: 1.33-14.7). COPD was associated with 80% and 23% non statistically significant increase in risk of progression for metaplasia and dysplasia, respectively. Asbestos exposure was associated with more than twice the risk of metaplastic lesions progressing. Central bronchial lesions had a non statistically significant 59% greater chance of progression, compared to peripheral bronchial lesions (AOR: 1.59, 95%CI: 0.82-3.07). Left bronchial lesions had a non statistically significant 73% greater chance of progression, compared to right bronchial lesions (AOR: 1.73, 95%CI: 0.80-3.76). Conclusion Our results show that metaplastic lesions might also progress to an invasive SCC. Male gender, current smoking, heavier smoking and COPD might be associated with progression of low grade lesions to higher grade. Central and left bronchial lesions might have a slightly greater risk of progression of premalignant lesions. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2008;1(7 Suppl):B55.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207