MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2328069724 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1832

Abstract 1832: Associations between ovarian cancer and other malignant neoplasms in an international population-based study

2010· article· en· W2328069724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manuela Marron, Ghislaine Scélo, Hajo Zeeb, Maria Blettner, Kari Hemminki, Jørgen H. Olsen, ­Eero Pukkala, Elisabete Weiderpass, Elizabeth Tracey, Sharon Tamaro, Vera Pompe‐Kirn, Erich V. Kliewer, Kee‐Seng Chia, Jon Tonita, Carmen Martos, Jón G. Jónasson, Hiroko Ohgaki, Paul Brennan, Paolo Boffetta

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerMedicineCancerGerm cell tumorsSerous fluidPopulationOncologyInternal medicineStomach cancerIncidence (geometry)OvaryEpidemiologyCancer registryCumulative incidenceGynecologyPathologyCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies have suggested that different histological types of ovarian cancer develop via different pathways. Large epidemiological studies of first and second malignant neoplasms associated with ovarian cancer can quantify such risk and may provide etiologic clues in understanding these complex pathways. We analyzed ovarian cancer data from 13 different cancer registries in Europe, Australia, Canada and Singapore from 1943-2000. Cumulative risks were calculated using a competing risk model, and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for 34 cancers were estimated based on the observed numbers of second malignancies and the expected numbers obtained from population-specific incidence rates. We observed 5,052 second malignant neoplasms in 107,038 ovarian cancer patients and 5,804 second ovarian cancers in 3,722,434 patients with cancer of other sites. Within 20 years from diagnosis of ovarian cancer, the cumulative risk of second malignant neoplasms was 4.8% (95% CI 4.6%, 5.0%) before 1980 and 7.1% (6.1, 8.0) after 1980. After sex cord-stromal, mucinous or endometrioid tumors of the ovary, the cumulative risk of second malignant neoplasms was higher [12.7% (11.2, 14.3), 10.0% (9.0, 11.0), 9.3% (7.9, 10.7), respectively] than after germ-cell tumors, serous tumors or adenocarcinoma NOS [6.2% (3.7, 8.7), 5.9% (5.5, 6.3), 5.1% (4.9, 5.4), respectively] within 20 years from diagnosis at age 45+. We observed increased SIRs for cancer of stomach [SIR=1.5 (95% CI 1.1, 2.0)], small intestine [3.2 (1.3, 6.5)], colon [1.5 (1.2, 1.8)], rectum [1.9 (1.4, 2.4)], soft tissue sarcoma [3.2 (1.5, 5.8)], non-melanoma of skin [1.4 (1.0, 1.7)], breast [1.3 (1.2, 1.5)], other female genital organ [2.2 (1.3, 3.5)], bladder [2.3 (1.7, 3.1)], kidney [1.8 (1.3, 2.6)], myeloid leukemia [3.5 (2.2, 5.4)] and other leukemia [6.4 (3.7, 10.2)] after serous tumors of the ovary. There were increased SIRs for colon [2.2 (1.7, 2.7)], rectum [1.9 (1.3, 2.6)], lung [2.1 (1.6, 2.7)] and bladder cancer [1.8 (1.0, 2.8)] after mucinous tumors. After endometrioid tumors, we observed an excess risk for cancer of colon [2.1 (1.5, 2.9)], bone [12.1 (1.5, 43.6)], soft tissue sarcoma [5.2 (1.1, 15.3)], corpus uteri [3.3 (2.2, 4.7)] and kidney [2.3 (1.1, 4.4)]. There was an association with cancer of soft tissue sarcoma [3.2 (1.0, 7.4)], bladder [2.2 (1.2, 3.4)], kidney [2.1 (1.2, 3.3)], thyroid gland [3.1 (1.5, 5.6)] and myeloid leukemia [4.2 (1.5, 9.1)] after sex cord-stromal tumors. SIRs of second ovarian cancer were increased after stomach, small intestine, colon, gallbladder, pancreas, peritoneum, non-melanoma skin and breast cancer. Women who survive ovarian cancer are at long-term risk of developing a second malignant neoplasm. The associations between specific types of ovarian cancer and other cancers may be attributed to late effects of radio- and chemotherapy, as well as to common genetic and environmental risk factors and pathways. Note: This abstract was not presented at the AACR 101st Annual Meeting 2010 because the presenter was unable to attend. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1832.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.459
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→