MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532994291 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.047

Efficacy of Second-line Targeted Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma According to Change from Baseline in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Category

2016· article· en· W2532994291 on OpenAlexaff
Ian D. Davis, Wanling Xie, Carmel Pezaro, Frede Donskov, J. Connor Wells, Neeraj Agarwal, Sandy Srinivas, Takeshi Yuasa, Benoit Beuselinck, Lori Wood, D. Scott Ernst, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Jennifer J. Knox, Allan J. Pantuck, Sadia Saleem, Ajjai Alva, Brian I. Rini, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Toni K. Choueiri, Daniel Y.C. Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaCarcinomaOncologyInternal medicineBaseline (sea)UrologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that changes in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic category at start of second-line therapy (2L) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) might predict response. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of 2L according to type of therapy and change in IMDC prognostic category. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective review of the IMDC database for mRCC patients who received first-line (1L) VEGF inhibitors (VEGFi) and then 2L with VEGFi or mTOR inhibitors (mTORi). IMDC prognostic categories were defined before each line of therapy (favorable, F; intermediate, I; poor, P). Data were analyzed for 1516 patients, of whom 89% had clear cell histology. INTERVENTION: All included patients received targeted therapy for mRCC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and response to 2L were analyzed using Cox or logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At start of 2L, 60% of patients remained in the same prognostic category; 9.0% improved (3% I → F; 6% P → I); 31% deteriorated (15% F → I or P; 16% I → P). Patients with the same or better IMDC prognostic category had a longer time to treatment failure if they remained on VEGFi compared to those who switched to mTORi (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] ranging from 0.33 to 0.78, adjusted p<0.05). Patients who deteriorated from F to I appeared more likely to benefit from switching to mTORi (median OS 16.5 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0-19.0 for VEGFi; 20.2 mo, 95% CI 14.3-26.1 for mTORi; AHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04-2.24; adjusted p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in IMDC prognostic category predict the subsequent clinical course for patients with mRCC and provide a rational basis for selection of subsequent therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: The pattern of treatment failure might help to predict what the next treatment should be for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207