MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803823444 · doi:10.1002/cncr.31553

Fusion status in patients with lymph node‐positive (N1) alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma is a powerful predictor of prognosis: Experience of the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG)

2018· article· en· W2803823444 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Soledad Gallego, Ilaria Zanetti, Daniel Orbach, Dominique Ranchère, Janet Shipley, Angelica Zin, Christophe Bergeron, Gian Luca De Salvo, Julia Chisholm, Andrea Ferrari, Meriel Jenney, Henry Mandeville, Timothy Rogers, Johannes H. M. Merks, Peter Múdrý, Heidi Glosli, Giuseppe Maria Milano, Sima Ferman, Gianni Bisogno

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchFondazione Città della Speranza
KeywordsMedicineRhabdomyosarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaLymph nodeUnivariate analysisRadiation therapyBiopsySarcomaAlveolar rhabdomyosarcomaOncologySoft tissueChemotherapySurgeryInternal medicineMultivariate analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (aRMS) with lymph node involvement (N1 classification) accounts for up to 10% of all cases of RMS. The prognosis is poor, and is comparable to that of distant metastatic disease. In the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) RMS2005 protocol, patients with a histologic diagnosis of aRMS/N1 received intensified chemotherapy with systematic locoregional treatment. METHODS: Patients with aRMS/N1 were enrolled prospectively after primary surgery/biopsy and fusion status was assessed in tumor samples. All patients received 9 cycles of induction chemotherapy and 6 months of maintenance therapy. Local treatment included radiotherapy to the primary site and lymph nodes with or without secondary surgical resection. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled. The clinical characteristics of the patients were predominantly unfavorable: 90% had macroscopic residual disease after initial surgery/biopsy, 63% had locally invasive tumors, 77% had a tumor measuring >5 cm, and 81% had disease at unfavorable sites. Fusion genes involving forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1) were detected in 56 of 84 patients. Events occurred in 52 patients: 43 developed disease recurrence, 7 had disease that was refractory to treatment, and 2 patients developed second neoplasms. On univariate analysis, unfavorable disease site, tumor invasiveness, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study group III, and fusion-positive status correlated with worse prognosis. The 5-year event-free survival rate of patients with fusion-positive tumors was 43% compared with 74% in patients with fusion-negative tumors (P = .01). On multivariate analysis, fusion positivity and tumor invasiveness proved to be unfavorable prognostic markers. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion status and tumor invasiveness appear to have a strong impact on prognosis in patients with aRMS/N1. Fusion status will be used to stratify these patients in the next EpSSG RMS study, and treatment will be intensified in patients with fusion-positive tumors. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207