MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of the occult tumor in cancer of unknown primary (CUP): A priority based on histology.

2013· article· en· W2592052797 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chong Sung Kim, Malek B. Hannouf, Muriel Brackstone, Eric Winquist, Gregory S. Zaric

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerCancer registryMetastasisPrimary tumorHistologyAdenocarcinomaOccultInternal medicineLog-rank testPathologicalOncologyProportional hazards modelPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1605 Background: The poor prognosis of cancer of unknown primary (CUP) patients is likely to improve with knowledge of the primary site. CUP patients form a diverse clinicopathological group; however, there remains doubt as CUP may indeed represent a unique clinical classification. Methods: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify all patients diagnosed with cancer from January 2000 to December 2005. We linked these patients with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Same Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract Database to identify those who were initially diagnosed with a metastatic tumour. Information on clinical and pathological characteristics including age, gender, primary tumour site, histology, and second primary were available from the Ontario Cancer Registry. We stratified results according to primary tumour site and histology. Five-year survival data were available for all patients and were obtained from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Results: Of 52,619 patients diagnosed with metastatic tumour at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis, 4,866 (9.2%) patients were diagnosed with CUP and 47,753 (90.8%) patients were diagnosed with metastasis of known primary. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of CUP overall survival (OS) differed significantly with patients diagnosed with metastasis of known primary (median OS= 1.0 versus 10.4 months, respectively, log–rank test p<0.0001). In subgroup analyses, the 5-year OS of CUP patients with adenocarcinoma (n=1,389, median OS=1.83) was significantly worse when compared to metastatic adenocarcinoma of known primary (log-rank test p<0.0001). An identical result was obtained with CUP patients of undifferentiated histology (n=3,230). The 5-year OS of CUP patients with squamous cell carcinoma (n=247, median OS=18.5) did not differ significantly with those of other squamous cell carcinoma groups of known primary (log-rank test p>0.56). Conclusions: Although CUP patients as a whole have a poor prognosis compared to other metastatic patients of known primary, distinct subsets of CUP patients have similar prognosis. These data suggest that an intensive diagnostic approach for identification of the primary is not justified for all CUP patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207