MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of bone and liver metastases (BM, LM) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with molecularly targeted agents (MTAs): Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).

2013· article· en· W2590586032 on OpenAlexaff
Rana R. McKay, Nils Kroeger, Wanling Xie, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Jennifer J. Knox, Georg A. Bjarnason, Mary J. MacKenzie, Lori Wood, Sandy Srinivas, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Sun Young Rha, Sumanta K. Pal, Frede Donskov, Srinivas K. Tantravahi, Brian I. Rini, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoCancer Care OntarioSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaLymph nodeInternal medicineProportional hazards modelOncologyUrologySurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

394 Background: The skeleton and liver are frequently involved sites of metastases in patients with mRCC. Their impact on survival outcomes of patients treated with currently approved MTAs is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze patient outcomes based on the presence or absence of BM and/or LM in the era of MTAs. Methods: We conducted a review from the IMCD of 2,027 patients with mRCC treated from April 2003 to August 2012. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Median follow-up was 21 months. 1,978 were treated with first-line VEGF targeted therapy and 49 were treated with first-line mTOR inhibitors. Presence of BM was 34% overall and 27%, 33%, and 43% in favorable, intermediate, and poor-risk disease, respectively, by IMDC criteria (p < 0.001). Presence of LM was 19% overall and higher in poor-risk patients (23%) compared to favorable (20%) or intermediate-risk groups (16%) (p = 0.003). Other sites of metastases include lung, lymph node, adrenal, soft tissue, and/or brain. Among patients with a single metastatic site, those with BM or LM had a worse overall survival (OS) when compared to metastases at other sites (Table). Among patients with ≥ 2 sites of metastases, those with BM and LM had a shorter time to treatment failure (4.2 vs. 7.3 months, p < 0.0001) and worse OS (Table) when compared to patients with metastases at other sites. In multivariable analyses adjusting for IMDC criteria, BM and LM independently predicted poorer survival (HR=1.38 for BM vs. other metastases, 1.37 for LM vs. other metastases, and 1.82 for concomitant BM and LM, respectively, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: BM and LM in mRCC patients have significant clinical relevance and may possibly be used for risk-stratification of patients with mRCC. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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