MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient-reported Symptoms of Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumors

2016· article· en· W2325862423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather L. Gelhorn, Sandra Tong, Kelly McQuarrie, Christina Vernon, Jennifer Hanlon, Grant Maclaine, William R. Lenderking, Xin Ye, Rebecca M. Speck, Richard D. Lackman, Susan V. Bukata, John H. Healey, Vicki L. Keedy, Stephen P. Anthony, Andrew J. Wagner, Daniel D. Von Hoff, Arun S. Singh, Carlos Becerra, Henry H. Hsu, Paul Lin, William D. Tap

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstitutePlexxikonFive Prime Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineClinical significanceAnkleElbowPhysical therapyForearmInternal medicineSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT), a rare locally aggressive neoplasm of the synovium of joints and tendon sheaths, is associated with joint destruction, inflammation, pain, and swelling, in part due to colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor-bearing macrophages recruited to the tumor by genetic elevation of colony-stimulating factor 1 activity. The most common treatment is surgery, although promising pharmacologic treatments are in development. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are critical end points in demonstrating the clinical relevance of standard oncologic outcome measures and the overall impact of novel pharmacologic therapies in nonmalignant neoplastic conditions such as TGCT. The content validity of PROs relevant to patients with TGCT has not been formally investigated, and instruments to evaluate such outcomes do not exist for this condition. METHODS: PRO instruments of potential relevance were evaluated by using a literature review and by clinical and PRO experts. Patients with TGCT were recruited through clinical sites and the Internet for participation in qualitative research interviews to identify predominant symptoms and to test the relevance and content validity of several PRO measures. Select PRO measures were included in a Phase I clinical trial, and preliminary results of the PRO end points are reported descriptively. FINDINGS: Of the 22 subjects who participated in qualitative interviews, 73% were female, and their mean age was 42.5 years (range, 27-56 years). The TGCTs (19 diffuse and 3 localized) were located in the knee (n = 15), hip (n = 3), ankle (n = 2), elbow (n = 1), and forearm (n = 1). The most common symptoms cited were pain (82%), swelling (86%), stiffness (73%), reduced range of motion (64%), and joint instability (64%), which were consistent with clinical expert input and with the content of instruments chosen by PRO experts. The worst pain numeric rating scale, Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical functioning items, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, as well as a worst stiffness numeric rating scale developed for TGCT, were confirmed as meaningful measures of TGCT patient symptoms and were well understood in qualitative interviews. Results from the Phase I trial showed trends of improvement in both pain and stiffness over time. IMPLICATIONS: This study is the first to gather information directly from patients with TGCT regarding their symptom experiences. Pain, stiffness, and physical functioning are important treatment outcomes in patients with TGCT. We have identified content-valid PRO measures of these concepts, which are included in an ongoing Phase III TGCT clinical trial with pexidartinib (PLX3397) (NCT02371369).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations111
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207