Pretreatment proliferation parameters do not add predictive power to clinical factors in cervical cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the prognostic value of tumor proliferation measurements in women with carcinoma of the uterine cervix. We report an update of a prospective study focusing on whether pretreatment proliferation parameters are associated with clinical outcome, relative to other established clinical factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients were recruited into the study from years 1991 to 1999. The LI for in vivo bromodeoxyuridine incorporation by the tumor and the potential doubling time (T(pot)) were determined by flow cytometry (fc). LI and its staining pattern were also assessed by immunohistochemistry (ih) using tissue sections. Apoptosis was assessed histologically using morphological criteria. Patients were treated with definitive radiation therapy. RESULTS: A successful fc measurement for LI-fc and T(pot) was possible in 95 patients (94%). The median/mean LI-fc was 6.6/7.6% (range 1.4-36.1%), and for LI-ih, 10.8/11.5%. To date, 43 patients have died of disease, and the median follow-up for alive patients is 6.2 years (range 1.3-9.3 years). Among 88 patients who completely responded to treatment, 40 patients have relapsed (14 pelvic, 23 distant, and 3 pelvic and distant). In univariate analysis, the significant factors for adverse disease-free survival were large tumor size (P = 0.0001), low hemoglobin (P = 0.001), pelvic lymph node status (P = 0.004), stage (P = 0.013), and overall treatment time (P = 0.0008). In multivariate analysis, only tumor size, pelvic lymph node status, and overall treatment time remained significant for disease-free survival. LI-fc, LI-ih, T(pot), ploidy, pattern of bromodeoxyuridine staining, and apoptosis were not significantly associated with clinical outcome in univariate or multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These mature data indicate that none of the pretreatment proliferation parameters have prognostic significance in the radical radiotherapy of carcinoma of the uterine cervix, despite the significance of overall treatment time for treatment outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".