MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic value of clinical and molecular markers in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC): importance of residual (Rs) disease. Translational study using tumor specimens from EORTC 55931/NCIC OV10 Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)

2005· article· en· W2262351582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Green, Florence Duffaud, Corneel Coens, Stéphane Laframboise, Ignace Vergote, E. Eisenhauer, Monica Bacon, W. Chapman, M.E.L. van der Burg, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyRandomized controlled trialPopulationConcordanceOvarian cancerContext (archaeology)Breast cancerUnivariate analysisCancerMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5005 Background: Rational selection of therapy in AOC requires molecular and prognostic profiling. We analyzed clinical (clin) and molecular (mol) markers from patients (pts) who participated in a multi-centre phase III RCT that demonstrated superiority of cisplatin (c)/paclitaxel over c/cyclophosphamide, and put these results in context of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: EORTC 55931/NCIC OV10 was a RCT that enrolled 680 pts between 1994 and 1995, with 391 from EORTC and NCIC CTG. Paraffin fixed tumor tissue was retrospectively retrieved and analyzed from 95 pts. Demographics of pts whose tissue was available were similar to the entire randomized population. 96% of pt had stage III/IV disease and 80% had Rs disease > 1cm when they commenced chemotherapy. Mol markers analyzed were P53, BCL2, P21, Mib-1, c-Erb B2, DNA ploidy, S-phase and mitotic index. Median follow-up time was 6.4 years. Mol and clin factors were analyzed as potential prognostic factors for PFS and OS, with stratification for treatment in univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) analyses. P53 was measured independently in Amsterdam and Toronto for the entire group, with the results blinded to the testing laboratories. The concordance between the two data sets was a measure of quality control and reproducibility. Results: The correlation between the two laboratories for P53 status was high (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient 0.8; p<0.001). UV analysis: there was significant (S) correlation between size of Rs disease and PFS (p=0.002) as well as OS (p=0.02). Stage and mitotic index were S predictors of OS (p=0.05 and 0.02), but not PFS. MV analysis: only Rs tumor mass remained S for PFS (p=0.002) and OS (p=0.02). The Hazard Ratio for patients with Rs disease > 1cm compared with <1cm was 2.4 for OS and 2.8 for PFS. Other mol and clin factors provided no additional information and were not retained in the final model. Conclusion: Assessment of clin and mol markers in women with AOC demonstrates that Rs tumor volume is S for predicting PFS and OS. None of the mol factors measured were independent predictors of these outcomes. 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→