MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival outcomes for de novo versus relapsed stage IV gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

2018· article· en· W2792646568 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Chan, Hao‐Wen Sim, Akina Natori, Stephanie Moignard, Daniel Yokom, Charles Henry Lim, Di Jiang, Eric Xueyu Chen, Jennifer J. Knox, Geoffrey Liu, Gail Darling, Carol J. Swallow, Savtaj S. Brar, James D. Brierley, Jolie Ringash, Rebecca Wong, John Kim, Sara Hafezi‐Bakhtiari, Elena Elimova, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCancerStage (stratigraphy)PerioperativeGastroenterologyCohortChemotherapyHazard ratioOncologySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

148 Background: In gastric/GEJ cancer, 40% of patients (pts) are metastatic at diagnosis ( de novo stage IV) and up to 70% with locoregional disease recur (relapsed stage IV). We compared survival outcomes between de novo vs relapsed stage IV. Methods: A retrospective observational study of stage IV gastric/GEJ pts was conducted (2012-2015). Overall survival (OS) was from date of stage IV diagnosis. PFS1 defined the period from stage IV diagnosis to first progression. PFS2 was from first to second progression. For relapsed stage IV pts, disease-free interval (DFI) was the period from initial diagnosis to metastatic relapse. Cox proportional hazards models compared OS, PFS1 and PFS2 between de novo vs relapsed stage IV pts, stratified by DFI [ < 6, 6-12 and > 12 months (mo)] and controlled for baseline patient characteristics. Results: Of 198 pts, 62% were male and median age was 64 years (26-93), with 64% gastric and 36% GEJ adenocarcinomas. Primary therapy for locoregional pts included surgery (75%), perioperative chemotherapy (42%) and radiotherapy (42%). De novo and relapsed stage IV pts represented 68% and 32% of the cohort respectively. Median follow-up was 13 mo. Controlled for age, performance status and Charlson comorbidity index, there were no significant differences in OS (median OS 12.5 ( de novo) vs 12.2 mo (relapsed); HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83-1.77, p = 0.31), PFS1 (6.8 vs 7.4 mo; HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65-1.56, p = 0.98) or PFS2 (3.8 vs 3.0 mo; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.44-2.41, p = 0.95). Median OS for relapsed stage IV patients were different by DFI groups (log-rank p = 0.02): 22.9 mo (for DFI > 12mo; n = 31), 11.2 mo (DFI 6-12; n = 19) and 7.5 mo (DFI < 6; n = 14). Additionally, OS was significantly better if the DFI was greater than 12 mo, compared with de novo stage IV (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.88, p = 0.02). Conclusions: There was no observed difference in the natural history of de novo vs relapsed stage IV gastric/GEJ pts. DFI was strongly prognostic with median OS (from date of relapse) approaching 2 years for relapsed pts with DFI > 12 mo. In addition to implications for treatment strategy, tumor biology within subgroups should be examined to identify novel biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207