Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Patients with Advanced Penile Cancer Receiving Salvage (2nd or Later Line) Systemic Treatment: A Retrospective, Multi-Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction & objectives: Metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) is associated with dismal outcomes with median overall survival (OS) of 6-12 months in the first-line and <6 months in the salvage setting. Given the rarity of this disease, randomized trials are difficult. Prognostic risk models may assist in rational drug development by comparing observed outcomes in nonrandomized phase II studies and retrospective data versus predicted outcomes based on baseline prognostic factors in the context of historically used agents. In this retrospective study, we constructed a prognostic model in the salvage setting of PSCC patients receiving second or later line systemic treatment, and also explored differences in outcomes based on type of treatment. Materials & methods: We performed a chart review to identify patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic PSCC who received second or later line systemic treatment in centers from North America and Europe. The primary outcome was OS from initiation of treatment, with secondary outcomes being progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify prognostic factors for outcomes using univariable and multivariable models. Results: Sixty-five patients were eligible. Seventeen of 63 evaluable patients had a response (27.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=16.6% to 39.7%) and median OS and PFS were 20 (95% CI=20 to 21) and 12 (95% CI =12, 16) weeks, respectively. Visceral metastasis (VM) and hemoglobin (Hb) ≤10 gm/dl were consistently significant poor prognostic factors for both OS and PFS, and Hb was also prognostic for response. The 28 patients with neither risk factor had a median OS (95% CI) of 24 (20-40) weeks and 1-year (95% CI) OS of 13.7% (4.4-42.7%), while the 37 patients with 1 or 2 risk factors had median OS (95% CI) of 20 (16-20) weeks and 1-year (95% CI) OS of 6.7% (1.8-24.9%). Cetuximab-including regimens were associated with a trend for improved RR compared to other agents (Odds ratio=5.05, 95% CI=0.84-30.37, p=0.077). Taxanes vs. non-taxane, and combination vs. single agent therapy was not associated with improved outcomes. The study is limited by its modest sample size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".