MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic role of pretreatment plasma EBV DNA on stage III nasopharyngeal carcinoma staged by AJCC/UICC 8<sup>th</sup> edition TNM staging classification.

2018· article· en· W2891785344 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Lee, Dora LW Kwong, To‐Wai Leung, Cheuk‐Wai Choi, Brian O’Sullivan, Vincent Lai, Chi‐Chung Tong, Ka-On Lam, Ann SY Chan, Patty PY Ho, Wendy WL Chan, Dennis KC Leung, Sik-Kwan Chan, Ka-Chun Tsang, Pek‐Lan Khong, Mai‐Yee Luk, Anne WM Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasopharyngeal carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)OncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancerChemotherapyCancer stagingCohortRadiation therapyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6055 Background: The AJCC/UICC 8th edition TNM staging classification for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) was launched in 2018. We previously proposed new stage groups which incorporated pretreatment plasma EBV DNA and T-, N-classifications into recursive partitioning analysis. Stage III disease remains heterogeneous with different combinations of T and N-classifications. We investigated if pretreatment plasma EBV DNA can stratify stage III into high-risk vs. low-risk groups (NCT02476669). Methods: 518 patients with non-metastatic NPC confirmed by PET-CT and MRI scans were prospectively recruited from 2010 to 2016. They all had plasma EBV DNA measured at baseline, and then 8 weeks and 6 months following IMRT with/without concurrent +/- adjunct chemotherapy. They were treated based on 7th edition TNM but were re-staged by 8th edition TNM for subsequent analysis. Covariates including age, sex, ACE-27, pretreatment LDH and plasma EBV DNA were analyzed by Cox regression for prognostic factors of progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 234 (45.2%) patients had stage III disease (see Table). 11 (4.7%) patients received IMRT alone, 39 (16.7%) received concurrent chemoradiation alone and the remaining 184 (78.6%) received concurrent chemoradiation and adjunct chemotherapy. The median pretreatment plasma EBV DNA was 494 copies/ml (range 0-175000 copies/ml). After a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 5-year PFS, CSS and OS in this cohort were 77.1%, 90.4% and 84.4% respectively. Pretreatment plasma EBV DNA 500 copies/ml stratified patients into high-risk vs. low-risk groups (PFS: 88.9% vs. 68.2%, p = 0.009; CSS: 96.8% vs. 85.4%, p = 0.033; OS: 91.2% vs. 79.4%, p = 0.124). Cox regression with multivariable analyses demonstrated that pretreatment plasma EBV DNA 500 copies/ml was the only significant prognostic factor of PFS (p = 0.005) and CSS (p = 0.027) while no prognostic factor was found for OS. Conclusions: Patients with high pretreatment plasma EBV DNA had a higher risk of relapse and additional therapy may be necessitated. N0 N1 N2 Total T1 0 0 43 43 T2 0 0 18 18 T3 21 46 106 173 Total 21 46 167 234

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→