MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact of BMI on outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapy: An external validation data set and analysis of underlying biology from The Cancer Genome Atlas.

2015· article· en· W2590525661 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Albigès, A. Ari Hakimi, Xun Lin, Ronit Simantov, Emily C. Zabor, Anders J. Skanderup, Helena Furberg, André P. Fay, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Sabina Signoretti, Rana R. McKay, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineUnderweightOncologyBody mass indexOverweightCancerOdds ratioCohortTargeted therapyClear cell renal cell carcinomaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

405 Background: Obesity is a risk factor for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and a poor prognostic factor across many tumor types. However, reports have suggested that RCC developing in an obesogenic environment may be more indolent. We recently reported on the favorable impact of body mass index (BMI) on survival in the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). The current work aims to externally validate this finding and characterize the underlying biology. Methods: We conducted an analysis of 4,657 metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients (pts) treated on phase II-III clinical trials sponsored by Pfizer from 2003-2013. We assessed the impact of BMI on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Additionally, we analysed metastatic pts from the clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort of TCGA dataset to correlate the expression of Fatty Acid Synthase (FASN) with BMI and OS. Results: At targeted therapy (TT) initiation, 1,829 (39%) pts were normal or underweight (BMI <25 kg/m2) and 2,828 (61%) were overweight or obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m2). Overall, the high BMI group had a longer median OS (23.4 months) than the low BMI group (14.5 months) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.830, p= 0.0008, 95% CI 0.743-0.925) after adjusting for the IMDC prognostic risk group and other risks factors. In addition, pts with high BMI had improved PFS (HR=0.821, 95% CI 0.746-0.903, p<0.0001) and ORR (odds ratio =1.527, 95% CI 1.258-1.855, p<0.001). These results remain valid when stratified by line of therapy. When stratified by histological subtype, the favorable outcome associated with high BMI was only observed in ccRCC. Toxicity patterns did not differ between BMI groups. In the the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset (n=61), there was a trend towards improved OS in the high BMI group (p=0.07). FASN gene expression inversely correlated with both OS (p=0.002) and BMI (p=0.034). Conclusions: In an external cohort,we validate BMI as an independent prognostic factor for improved survival in mRCC. Given that this finding was observed in ccRCC only, we hypothesize that lipid metabolism may be modulated by the fat laden tumors cells. FASN staining in the IMDC cohort is ongoing to better investigate the obesity paradox in mRCC.

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)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→