MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624147378 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1613210

Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma

2017· article· en· W2624147378 on OpenAlexaff
Mark B. Faries, John F. Thompson, Alistair J. Cochran, Robert H.I. Andtbacka, Nicola Mozzillo, Jonathan S. Zager, Tiina Jahkola, Tawnya L. Bowles, Alessandro Testori, Peter D. Beitsch, Harald J. Hoekstra, Marc Moncrieff, Christian Ingvar, Michel W.J.M. Wouters, Michael S. Sabel, Edward A. Levine, Doreen M. Agnese, Michael A. Henderson, Reinhard Dummer, Carlo Riccardo Rossi, Rogerio I. Neves, Steven D. Trocha, Frances C. Wright, David R. Byrd, Maurice Matter, Eddy C. Hsueh, Alastair D. MacKenzie Ross, Douglas B. Johnson, Patrick Terheyden, Adam C. Berger, Tara L. Huston, Jeffrey D. Wayne, B. Mark Smithers, Heather B. Neuman, Schlomo Schneebaum, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Charlotte E. Ariyan, Darius C. Desai, Lisa K. Jacobs, Kelly M. McMasters, Anja Gesierich, Peter Hersey, Steven D. Bines, John M. Kane, Richard J. Barth, Gregory McKinnon, Jeffrey M. Farma, Erwin Schultz, Sergi Vidal‐Sicart, Richard Hoefer, James M. Lewis, Randall P. Scheri, Mark C. Kelley, Omgo E. Nieweg, R. Dirk Noyes, Dave S.�B. Hoon, David Elashoff, Robert M. Elashoff

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthIncyteLes Laboratories Pierre FabreCastle BiosciencesGlaxoSmithKlineDr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research FoundationBristol-Myers SquibbAmgen
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaSentinel nodeDissection (medical)Lymph nodeSentinel lymph nodeSurvival rateMetastasisSurgeryLog-rank testBiopsySurvival analysisRadiologyInternal medicineCancerBreast cancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node metastasis. RESULTS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log-rank test) at a median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log-rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel-node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895 .).

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1,385
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207