MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PET-CT compared to invasive mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2009· article· en· W2511601841 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Darling, Donna E. Maziak, Richard Inculet, Karen Y. Gulenchyn, A. A. Driedger, Yee Ung, J. Miller, Chu‐Shu Gu, William K. Evans, Mark N. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMediastinoscopyRadiologyLung cancerStage (stratigraphy)Nuclear medicineThoracotomyMediastinumLung cancer stagingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7575 Background: In patients with NSCLC, preoperative staging tests including mediastinoscopy (M) are important in defining which patients are surgical candidates. 18FDG PET-CT is useful in identifying patients with mediastinal disease not evident by CT. Alternatively, M may not be required if PET-CT is negative. We have previously reported reduced rates of unnecessary thoracotomy (T) in the PET-CT arm of a trial which compared staging with PET-CT versus conventional imaging (bone scan and CT liver and adrenals) in patients with clinical stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC being considered for surgery (J Clin Oncol 26 May 20 suppl: abstr 7502). Methods: In this analysis, we determined the accuracy of PET-CT in mediastinal staging compared to invasive surgical staging either by M alone or by M and T. Patients in the PET-CT arm had invasive mediastinal staging either by M or mediastinal nodal sampling at T. PET-CT was considered positive if N2 or N3 nodes exhibited increased 18FDG uptake. Results: M was performed in 81 of 143 patients in the PET-CT arm; the remainder had mediastinal nodal staging at T. Combining M with T, the sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.70 [95% CI: 0.48–0.85] and 0.94 [95%CI: 0.89–0.97], respectively. Of 21 patients with a positive PET-CT, 7 did not have tumor. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 0.67 [95% CI: 0.45–0.83] and 0.95 [95% CI: 0.90–0.98], respectively. The results for PET-CT versus M alone were: sensitivity, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.76–1.0]; specificity, 0.88 [95%CI: 0.79–0.94]; PPV, 0.60 [95%CI: 0.39–0.78]; NPV, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.94–1.0]. Based on PET-CT alone, 7 patients would have been denied T if PET-CT abnormalities had not been evaluated with invasive mediastinal staging. Conclusions: Mediastinal abnormalities on PET-CT should be confirmed by invasive mediastinal staging because of the risk of a false positive test. Patients should not be denied potentially curative therapy based on PET-CT alone. If PET-CT is negative in the mediastinum, the likelihood of occult metastatic disease in the mediastinum is very low and invasive staging may not be required depending on the clinical context. 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207