Systematic review of response evaluation in gastrointestinal stromal tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e21500 Background: Our purpose was to conduct an evidence-based systematic review of the literature on the accuracy of 18FDG PET - CT(PET) and contrast enhanced computer tomography (CT) in assessment of response to imatinib therapy in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) Methods: A systematic review of the literature between January 2000 and December 2008 was performed on Medline and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria included prognostic studies or diagnostic studies using CT or PET to determine response to imatinib. Only articles with Level 1B or higher were included. The following variables were extracted: imaging modality (PET, In-line PET/CT, CT), response criteria used EORTC,RECIST criteria, or novel criteria), and the clinical outcome (time-to-treatment failure (TTF), time to progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), disease specific survival (DSS), and/or overall survival). The number of responders and non-responders was extracted from the data, and the reported log rank statistics for the Kaplan Meier curves were used to determine the strength of correlation between the responders and the clinical outcomes. Results: Five articles met the strict criteria for Level 1B evidence. Four articles met the inclusion criteria for In-line PET/CT. In these four articles the log rank correlation between In-line PET/CT response criteria described by the EORTC and the outcome measure of TTF ranged between. p=0.002 -0.04, a very high degree of positive correlation. A subset of four articles met the strict methodological inclusion criteria for CT using RECIST criteria. The log rank correlation for RECIST ranged from p=0.100 - 0.74, no significant correlation. Only one of the articles met the criteria for prospectively applying novel CHOI criteria with CT in a validating cohort. The log rank correlation with the TTF was p=0.0002, a very high degree of positive correlation. Conclusions: In-line PET/CT using EORTC criteria accurately predicts the response to imatinib in terms of TTF or PFS across four Level 1B studies. CT using RECIST criteria has a poor correlation with TTF in well designed studies and is not a useful predictor of response; consistently poor across four Level 1B studies. CT using CHOI criteria shows promise in a single Level 1B study No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".