MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome of metastatic sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC): Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium.

2013· article· en· W2606264658 on OpenAlexaff
Namita Chittoria, Hui Zhu, Toni K. Choueiri, Nils Kroeger, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Sandy Srinivas, Jennifer J. Knox, Georg A. Bjarnason, Mary J. MacKenzie, Lori Wood, Ulka N. Vaishamayan, Neeraj Agarwal, Sumanta K. Pal, Min‐Han Tan, Sun Young Rha, Takeshi Yuasa, Frede Donskov, Scott North, Brian I. Rini, Daniel Yick Chin Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCancer Care OntarioSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHistologyInternal medicineRenal cell carcinomaGastroenterologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4565 Background: Sarcomatoid differentiation in metastatic RCC (sRCC) is associated with poor prognosis. Robust data regarding outcome in the targeted therapy era is lacking. Methods: Clinical features, prognostic factors, and treatment outcomes in mRCC patients with and without sarcomatoid histology treated with targeted therapy were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Results: 2,286 patients were identified (non-sRCC(n=2,056); sRCC(n=230)). sRCC patients had significantly worse Heng prognostic group distribution compared to non-sRCC (11% vs 19% favorable risk, 49% vs 57% intermediate risk, and 40% vs 24% poor risk; p<0.0001). Time from original diagnosis to relapse (excluding synchronous metastatic disease) in the sRCC patients was 18.8 months compared to 42.9 months in non-sRCC group; p<0.0001. There was no significant difference in the incidence of CNS metastases (6-8%) or underlying clear cell histology (87-88%). Greater than 93% of patients received VEGF inhibitors as first line therapy; 21% achieved an objective response in the sRCC group as compared to 26% in the non-sRCC group with significantly more sRCC patients (43% vs. 21%) having primary refractory disease (p<0.0001, for both). sRCC patients had significantly less use of second-line (p=0.018) and third-line (p=0.0004) systemic therapy. The median PFS / OS was 4.5 months / 10.4 months in sRCC patients and 7.8 months / 22.5 months in non-sRCC patients (p<0.0001 for both). Sarcomatoid histology was associated with a significantly worse PFS and OS after adjusting for the individual Heng risk factors in multivariable analysis (HR 1.5, p<0.0001 for both). Conclusions: Patients with sRCC have worse baseline prognostic criteria, a shorter time to relapse and worse clinical outcome to targeted therapy compared to patients with non-sRCC. Additional insight into the biology of sRCC is needed to develop alternative therapeutics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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