MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170584913 · doi:10.14740/wjon843w

Pazopanib-Induced Regression of Brain Metastasis After Whole Brain Palliative Radiotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Progressing on First-Line Sunitinib: A Case Report

2014· article· en· W2170584913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohan Hingorani, Sanjay Dixit, Anthony Maraveyas

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePazopanibSunitinibBrain metastasisRenal cell carcinomaSorafenibMetastasisOncologyInternal medicineCancerRadiation therapyHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pervious randomized studies have demonstrated survival benefit in favor of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) compared to cytokines in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the role of TKIs for treating brain metastasis from RCC remains unknown. Previous studies have reported possible activity of sunitinib and sorafenib in RCC patients with brain metastasis. We report on patient with metastatic RCC who responded to first-line sunitinib but then progressed with multiple brain metastasis, but with controlled extra-cranial metastatic disease. The patient was treated with whole-brain palliative radiotherapy followed by treatment schedule of pazopanib at standard dose of 800 mg/day which was associated with a response in brain metastasis. Subsequently, she was re-challenged at reduced dose of 600 mg/day and developed further response in metastatic brain lesions. She lived for more than 3 years from initial diagnosis of brain metastasis. This is the first case report of sequential TKI therapy for treating metastatic RCC with brain metastasis and supports the probable use of pazopanib as potent TKI for treating patients with cerebral metastasis.

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)0.002
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.382
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 designCase report
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207