MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Utility of total body FDG PET/CT imaging in the initial staging of soft-tissue sarcoma

2009· article· en· W2254206427 on OpenAlexaff
David Roberge, Marc Hickeson, Mathieu Charest, Robert Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityLakeshore General HospitalMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaRadiologyLeiomyosarcomaSoft tissueSynovial sarcomaChondrosarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaStage (stratigraphy)LiposarcomaRhabdomyosarcomaBiopsyAlveolar soft part sarcomaPrimary tumorPhysical examinationCancerMetastasisPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10531 Background: Soft-tissue sarcoma spreads predominantly to the lung. It is currently unclear how often PET scan will detect metastases not already obvious by chest imaging or clinical examination. Methods: Soft-tissue sarcoma cases were identified retrospectively. Ewing's sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma and GIST tumors were excluded as were patients imaged for follow-up, response assessment or recurrence. Patients all had had a diagnostic chest CT scan as part of their staging. Directed studies were requested to follow-up on abnormal findings in the clinical history or physical examination. All charts and pre-treatment imaging were reviewed retrospectively. Results: From 2004 to 2008, 75 patients met the criteria for this review. These 75 patients had total body FDG-PET/CT imaging on routine initial staging of their sarcoma. The median age was 51. In 21% of cases, the primary tumor had been removed by excisional biopsy or unplanned excision prior to staging. 97% of the previously unresected primary tumors were FDG avid (SUV ≥ 2). 81% of tumors were high-grade (FNCLCC Grade 2–3). The primary tumor was stage T2b in 68% of cases. The most common primary site was the lower extremity (55%). The most common pathological diagnoses were: leiomyosarcoma (21%), liposarcoma (19%) and synovial sarcoma (17%). At the end of staging, 17% of patients were considered to have metastatic disease. PET scans were negative for distant disease in 64/75 cases. Seven of these 64 cases had metastatic disease on chest CT (negative predictive value 89%). 8 PET scans were positive - of these, 4 patients were already known to have metastases, 2 were pathologically proven false positives and 1 was a new finding of a pulmonary metastasis (sensitivity 46%). Three patients had indeterminate PET scans (subsequently none developed metastatic disease). Two incidental benign parotid tumors were found. In total, only 1 patient was upstaged by the PET imaging (1.3%). In addition, PET did not alter management of patients already know to have M1 disease (no new organ sites identified). Conclusions: Although PET scans may be of use in specific circumstances, routine use of FDG PET imaging for detection of metastatic disease as part of the initial staging of soft-tissue sarcoma adds little to chest CT scanning and is unlikely to alter management. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→