MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The impact of active smoking on survival outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with targeted therapy.

2016· article· en· W2591469525 on OpenAlexaff
Haoran Li, Nils Kroeger, Guillermo de Velasco, Frede Donskov, Hao‐Wen Sim, Connor Wells, Igor Stukalin, Neeraj Agarwal, Hiral D. Parekh, Brian I. Rini, Jennifer J. Knox, Allan J. Pantuck, Toni K. Choueiri, Daniel Yick Chin Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicineTargeted therapyOncologyCancerSmoking cessationCarcinomaGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

552 Background: Smoking increases the risk of developing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The prognosis of active smokers compared with non-smokers with metastatic RCC (mRCC) has not been well characterized. Methods: Smoking data from 1,842 patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) from 8 Cancer Centers. Patients were categorized as current, former and non-smokers at the time of starting targeted therapy, and analyzed for differences in IMDC risk criteria, response rate (RR), progression- free-, (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Overall, 292 (15.9%), 755 (41.0%), and 795 (43.1%) were current, former, and non-smokers. There were no differences in sarcomatoid features, number of metastatic sites or non-clear cell histology in either former or current smokers when compared with non-smokers. Likewise, former smokers had statistically similar IMDC risk groups compared to non-smokers. However, current smokers were more likely to have hypercalcemia (p=0.004), neutrophilia (p=0.038), thrombophilia (p=0.002), and more patients had higher numbers of IMDC risk features (p=0.014) when compared with non-smokers. The RR at first-line targeted therapy of former (p=0.89) and current smokers (p=0.13) were similar to non-smokers. No differences in PFS were noted: 7.7 vs. 7.6 vs. 6.2 months (mo) in non-, former (p=0.92), and current smokers (p=0.66). Interestingly, while former- and non-smokers had comparable OS times (23.7 vs. 23.1 mo; p=0.71), current smokers had significantly shorter OS (15.8 mo; p=0.001) than non-smokers. Current but not former smoking status was an independent poor prognosis factor (HR=1.28; p=0.006) when adjusted for the IMDC risk criteria. Moreover, each pack year increased the risk of death 1% (HR=1.01; p=0.039). Conclusions: Active smoking is associated with more advanced IMDC risk criteria and diminished OS in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy agents. On the other hand, patients who quit smoking returned to a similar risk of death compared to patients who never smoked. Smoking cessation should be a counselling priority among mRCC patients receiving targeted agents.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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