MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560055131 · doi:10.15226/2374-815x/2/4/00171

Do patients with recurrent and de novo metastatic biliary cancer have similar outcomes on treatment

2016· article· en· W2560055131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mairéad G. McNamara, Priya Aneja, Manjula Maganti, Anne M. Horgan, Sean P. Cleary, Jennifer J. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerBiliary tract cancerInternal medicineOncologyGemcitabine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) include cholangiocarcinoma, referring to cancers arising in the intrahepatic, perihilar or distal biliary tree, ampulla of vater and gallbladder carcinoma. Even after complete surgical resection, a large number of patients with BTC develop recurrence. Whether recurrence after surgery and de novo metastatic BTC should have comparable stratification in first-line palliative systemic therapy studies is unknown. Methods: Patients who received palliative chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced BTC between January 1987 and May 2014 in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto were reviewed. Probability of overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan- Meier method, and independent prognostic factors for OS were identified using the multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model. Results: There were 171 patients with recurrent and 309 with de novo metastatic disease. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years; performance status<2: 436 (91%) patients, male: 262 (55%). In the recurrent group, 102 (60%) had indwelling stents, 33 (32%) ampulla of vater, 14 (14%) gallbladder, 55 (54%) cholangiocarcinoma. In the de novo metastatic group, 173 (56%) had indwelling stents, primary site was ampulla of vater in 13 (7%), gallbladder in 43 (25%), cholangiocarcinoma in 117 (68%). Systemic treatment received was gemcitabine/platinum doublet in 137 (29%), gemcitabine/5- fluorouracil doublet; 186 (39%), gemcitabine; 93 (19%), other; 64 (13%). Median OS for the recurrent group who received firstline palliative chemotherapy was 15.6 months (95%-confidence interval [CI] 13.5-18.0) and 14.4 months (95%-CI 12.0-16.0) in the de novo metastatic group. Multivariable analysis for OS revealed that gallbladder as the primary site (P=0.04) and ECOG performance status ≥ 2 (P=0.001) were prognostic for worse OS. De novo metastatic status was not prognostic for worse OS compared with recurrent status (Hazard ratio 0.9, 95% CI-0.66-1.23, P=0.51). Conclusions: Similar treatment of patients with recurrent disease after surgery and de novo metastatic BTC, with first-line palliative chemotherapy is acceptable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)Same topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207