Evaluation of the risk of relapse of patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma at event-free survival time points.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e21074 Background: The prognosis of patients (pts) with stage III cutaneous melanoma is typically estimated at the time of diagnosis. Recent studies in other malignancies have reported the utility of estimating outcome using a conditional survival approach. Herein, we evaluated the risk of melanoma relapse at event-free survival (EFS) time points in pts with stage III cutaneous melanoma in British Columbia (BC). Methods: The Cancer Surveillance & Outcomes Database and Co Path Database were screened to identify pts diagnosed between 1998 and 2013 in BC with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma. A competing risk model was used to estimate 5-year (y) risk of recurrence at pre-specified EFS time points, with non-melanoma related deaths considered competing risks. Results: In total, 513 patients were identified: 329 males (64%); median age at diagnosis 58 y (16-99); median follow-up 5.6 y (0.2-17.5) for living pts. In total, 330 pts (64%) had a melanoma recurrence and most were distant metastases (n=194, 59% v regional n=79, 24% v local n= 57, 17%). The median time to first recurrence of any type was 11.6 months. The 5-y risk of any relapse was 63.8% at EFS 0, which decreased to 11.4% by EFS 5 y (Table 1). Full staging information was available for 423 pts (83%); the risk of relapse was lower for stage IIIA compared to IIIB and IIIC at EFS 0 (48%, 68% and 77%, respectively, p<0.001). By EFS 2 y, there was no difference between the groups; however, the 5-y risk of relapse was still moderate (IIIA 40%, IIIB 41%, IIIC 36%, p=0.46). Conclusions: While the risk of melanoma relapse decreases over time, it remains moderate up until 5 y, with distant recurrence as the most frequent event. This data can help inform surveillance guidelines and serves as a benchmark to compare the impact of novel therapies in the adjuvant setting. [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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".