MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060562974 · doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4382-x

[99mTc]Tilmanocept Accurately Detects Sentinel Lymph Nodes and Predicts Node Pathology Status in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Results of a Phase III Multi-institutional Trial

2015· article· en· W2060562974 on OpenAlexaff
Amit Agrawal, Francisco Civantos, Kevin T. Brumund, Douglas B. Chepeha, Nathan C. Hall, William R. Carroll, Russell B. Smith, Robert P. Zitsch, Walter T. Lee, Yelizaveta Shnayder, David M. Cognetti, Karen T. Pitman, Dennis W. King, Lori Christman, Stephen Y. Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgical oncologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaBasal cellHead and neckLymph nodeOncologyCarcinomaPathologyRadiologyHead and neck cancerInternal medicineCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: [(99m)Tc]Tilmanocept, a novel CD206 receptor-targeted radiopharmaceutical, was evaluated in an open-label, phase III trial to determine the false negative rate (FNR) of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) relative to the pathologic nodal status in patients with intraoral or cutaneous head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) undergoing tumor resection, SLNB, and planned elective neck dissection (END). Negative predictive value (NPV), overall accuracy of SLNB, and the impact of radiopharmaceutical injection timing relative to surgery were assessed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00911326) enrolled 101 patients with T1-T4, N0, and M0 HNSCC. Patients received 50 µg [(99m)Tc]tilmanocept radiolabeled with either 0.5 mCi (same day) or 2.0 mCi (next day), followed by lymphoscintigraphy, SLNB, and END. All excised tissues were evaluated for tissue type and tumor presence. [(99m)Tc]Tilmanocept identified one or more SLNs in 81 of 83 patients (97.6 %). Of 39 patients identified with any tumor-positive nodes (SLN or non-SLN), one patient had a single tumor-positive non-SLN in whom all SLNs were tumor-negative, yielding an FNR of 2.56 %; NPV was 97.8 % and overall accuracy was 98.8 %. No significant differences were observed between same-day and next-day procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Use of receptor-targeted [(99m)Tc]tilmanocept for lymphatic mapping allows for a high rate of SLN identification in patients with intraoral and cutaneous HNSCC. SLNB employing [(99m)Tc]tilmanocept accurately predicts the pathologic nodal status of intraoral HNSCC patients with low FNR, high NPV, and high overall accuracy. The use of [(99m)Tc]tilmanocept for SLNB in select patients may be appropriate and may obviate the need to perform more extensive procedures such as END.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Other design
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

Citations132
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Surgical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207