MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What is the optimal strategy to confirm the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)?

2009· article· en· W2534490732 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Dodge, Helen Mackay, S. Klachook, Marcus Q. Bernardini, Patricia Shaw, Kieran Murphy, Emily Lo, Barry P. Rosen, OC Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCytologyHistologyBiopsyRadiologySerous fluidChemotherapyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5511 Background: NAC has been increasingly utilized in clinical practice yet no standard diagnostic strategy has been defined for EOC prior to the administration of NAC. We reviewed the diagnostic process for patients receiving NAC at our centre to determine if an optimal diagnostic strategy could be determined. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients known to receive NAC followed by cytoreductive surgery for presumed EOC between 1994 and 2007 was performed. Diagnostic strategies were defined as histology, cytology, and clinical. Performance of these strategies in predicting final pathology, based on expert pathology review of surgery specimens, was compared using Fisher's exact test. Results: 152 patients were included. Initial diagnosis was made on the basis of: cytology (paracentesis/thoracentesis)- 89 (59%); percutaneous biopsy- 40 (26%), radiology and CA-125–18 (12%), surgical biopsy -5 (3%). The final diagnosis was consistent with invasive EOC in 145 patients (95%). The remaining 7 were ovarian LMP (4), ovarian carcinosarcoma (1), endometrial serous cancer (1), and GI tumor (1). The diagnostic accuracies of the 3 strategies differed: histology (43/45), cytology (87/89), and clinical (15/18), p = 0.039. 17% of patients had an alternate final diagnosis when clinical parameters were the only basis for the diagnosis of EOC prior to NAC. A specific EOC subtype was identified pre-op in 82 patients (histology-31 cases, cytology-51 cases). Subtype differed between pre- and post-treatment samples in 13% of histology and 8% of cytology cases. Conclusions: Diagnosis of EOC based on cytology or histology-based strategies are superior to clinical factors alone. Even in a centre with trained gynecologic cytopathologists, cytology and biopsy strategies preclude accurate subtype diagnosis in a significant number of patients. These data are important for clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials. 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→