MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of the Princess Margaret immune oncology prognostic index (PM-IPI) for patients (pts) treated in immune oncology (IO) early phase trials.

2017· article· en· W2889642957 on OpenAlexaff
Daphne Day, Anna Spreafico, Stéphanie Lheureux, Albiruni Ryan Abdul Razak, Aaron R. Hansen, Lisa Wang, Marcus O. Butler, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortOncologyProgression-free survivalGastroenterologySurgeryOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3070 Background: We previously developed the PM-IPI (ECOG performance status [PS] > / = 1, albumin < lower limit of normal [LLN] and > 2 metastatic sites) from a retrospective cohort of 192 pts treated in phase I IO trials (development cohort). The PM-IPI prognosticated for overall survival (OS), 90-day mortality (90DM) and was associated with improved overall response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS). Our aim was to prospectively validate the PM-IPI in an independent cohort of pts treated on IO trials. Methods: We included 152 consecutively treated advanced solid tumor pts at PM from Aug 2015 to Aug 2016 in 24 IO early phase trials, targeting immune checkpoints and/or co-stimulatory molecules. Pts from the development cohort were excluded. The ability of the PM-IPI to prognosticate OS and 90DM, and predict PFS and ORR was compared with the previously published Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (RMI: albumin < 35g/L, LDH > upper limit of normal and > 2 metastatic sites) using the C-index (0.5 = no discrimination, 1 = perfect discrimination) and Area Under the Curve (AUC). Results: Median age was 59y (range 20-86), 28%/72% of pts were ECOG PS 0/1, and 88% had at least 1 prior systemic therapy (range 0-7). The most common tumor sites were gastrointestinal (23%), gynecological (16%), head and neck (15%) and urological (10%). Median PFS and OS were 9.0 and 39.7 wk respectively and 90DM was 14%. ORR was 7% by RECIST 1.1, immune related RECIST or immune related response criteria. In multivariable analysis, ECOG PS > / = 1 (HR 2.7, p = 0.01), albumin < LLN (HR 2.1, p = 0.01) and > 2 metastatic sites (HR 1.8, p = 0.04) were independently prognostic for OS. Pts with a PM-IPI score of 2-3 compared to 0-1 had significantly shorter OS (HR 3.3, p < 0.0001), PFS (HR 1.7, p = 0.005) and higher 90DM (OR 12.2, p = 0.019), and a trend towards lower ORR (OR 0.4, p = 0.15). The prognostic performance of PM-IPI was superior to the RMI for OS and 90DM, but not PFS and ORR (Table). Conclusions: In this independent validation cohort, the PM-IPI prognosticated for OS and 90DM and was associated with PFS. Validation in a large external cohort is ongoing. [Table: see text]

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→