MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Baseline predictors of early treatment failure in patients with platinum resistant/refractory (PRR) and potentially platinum sensitive (PPS ≥ 3) recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) receiving ≥ 3 lines of chemotherapy: The Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) Symptom Benefit Study (SBS).

2015· article· en· W2597747698 on OpenAlexaff
Felicia Roncolato, Rachel O’Connell, Florence Joly, Anne Lanceley, Felix Hilpert, Aikou Okamoto, Eriko Aotani, Sandro Pignata, Paul Donnellan, Amit M. Oza, Elisabeth Åvall‐Lundqvist, Jonathan S. Berek, Katrin Marie Sjoquist, Kim Gillies, Phyllis Butow, Martin R. Stockler, Madeleine King, Michael Friedländer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelAscitesPerformance statusCancerOvarian cancerProgression-free survivalThrombocytosisGastroenterologyChemotherapyUnivariate analysisOncologySurgeryConfidence intervalMultivariate analysisPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5564 Background: Women with PRR/PPS ≥ 3 ROC are a heterogeneous group with unpredictable response to palliative chemotherapy (PC). GCIG SBS recently completed recruitment of 949 patients treated with PC. Primary aim is to validate an instrument to measure symptom benefit; secondary aims include identifying factors that predict early progression. 25% of patients with PRR-ROC received < 8 weeks of PC. Methods: Physicians recorded baseline characteristics, symptoms (symptomatic ascites, cramping abdominal pain), site/extent of disease and prespecified lab values. Association between baseline characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed using time-to-event methods. Median PFS was calculated according to clinically relevant categories and log-rank test applied to assess prognostic value. Cox regression was used to compute hazard ratios and 95% CI to assess the effect of variables on PFS. Results: Sufficient follow up for analysis of PFS was available in 791 patients. Median PFS and overall survival were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.9-4.9) and 12.9 months (95% CI: 11.4-14.0) respectively. In univariate analysis factors with statistically significant associations with PFS included: haemoglobin, PRR-ROC, ascites and abdominal cramps, nodal disease, thrombocytosis, CA125 > 1000, LDH > 600, ECOG status, and elevated c reactive protein. Non-significant factors included: visceral metastases, albumin < 25, lymphocytes < 0.5, tumour volume. Significant variables in multivariable analysis included: ECOG ≥ 2 (HR 1.61 95% CI 1.18-2.19 p = 0.003); nodal disease (HR 1.37 95%CI 1.13-1.67 p = 0.002); ascites (HR 1.54 95%CI 1.24-1.92 p = 0.0001); platinum resistant vs. sensitive (HR 1.39 95%CI 1.12-1.72 p = 0.002), CA125 > 1000 (HR 1.35 95%CI 1.09-1.67 p = 0.005); LDH > 600 (HR 1.88 95%CI 1.36-2.60 p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Several simple clinical variables help predict patients who progress rapidly and will be used to construct prognostic models to aid clinical decisions and trial stratification for clinical trials in PRR/PPS ≥ 3 ROC Clinical trial information: 12607000603415.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→