MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of M1a and M1b Category in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2014· article· en· W2162278616 on OpenAlexafffund
Hagen F. Kennecke, Jason Yu, Sharlene Gill, Winson Y. Cheung, Charles D. Blanke, Caroline Speers, Ryan Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer Agency
KeywordsMedicineMetastasisHazard ratioInternal medicineOncologyColorectal cancerCancerProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisPrimary tumorSurgical oncologySurvival analysisMultivariate analysisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 staging system introduced the M1 subclassifications M1a (single metastatic site) and M1b (peritoneal or multiple metastatic sites). The study objectives were to evaluate the prognostic effect of site of metastasis and M1a/b category among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and synchronous metastasis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed pathologic or clinical category M1 colorectal cancer referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency between 1999 and 2007 were included. Demographic, tumor, treatment, and outcome data were prospectively collected, and prognostic factors were identified. Univariate Cox models were used to assess the prognostic impact of individual sites of metastasis and to determine the effect of M1a/b category on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 2,049 eligible patients, 70% had M1a and 30% M1b category disease. The most common sites of common single sites of metastasis included liver (56%), lung (5.3%), and peritoneum (3.6%). Metastasis to a single organ or site, including peritoneum, was associated with improved OS compared with multiple sites of metastasis. In multivariate analysis, M1b category conferred inferior survival and hazard ratio (HR) 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22, 1.55), along with age >70 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3-4. Resection of primary tumor was associated with improved survival, HR 0.46 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.52). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of patients undergoing resection of their primary tumor when histology, tumor, and node category were included. CONCLUSION: The results lend support to the introduction of M1a/b colorectal cancer categories. Consideration may be given to classifying patients with solitary peritoneal metastasis only as M1a rather than M1b category. Further refinement of category M1a to reflect resectability of metastasis at initial diagnosis may improve prognostication.

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)0.000
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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207