MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891991146 · doi:10.1002/ijc.31856

The addition of pretreatment plasma Epstein–Barr virus DNA into the eighth edition of nasopharyngeal cancer TNM stage classification

2018· article· en· W2891991146 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Lee, Dora Lai‐Wan Kwong, To‐Wai Leung, Cheuk‐Wai Choi, Brian O’Sullivan, Ka‐On Lam, Vincent Lai, Pek‐Lan Khong, Sik‐Kwan Chan, Chor‐Yi Ng, Chi‐Chung Tong, Patty Ho, Wing‐Lok Chan, Lai‐San Wong, Dennis Kwok‐Chuen Leung, Sum‐Yin Chan, Tsz‐Him So, Mai‐Yee Luk, Anne W.M. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasopharyngeal carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineOncologyMedicineHazard ratioCancerProgression-free survivalProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyChemotherapyBiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage classification (TNM) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) was launched. It remains unknown if incorporation of nonanatomic factors into the stage classification would better predict survival. We prospectively recruited 518 patients with nonmetastatic NPC treated with radical intensity-modulated radiation therapy ± chemotherapy based on the eighth edition TNM. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) incorporating pretreatment plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA derived new stage groups. Multivariable analyses to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) derived another set of stage groups. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were: Stage I (PFS 100%, OS 90%, CSS 100%), II (PFS 88%, OS 84%, CSS 95%), III (PFS 84%, OS 84%, CSS 90%) and IVA (PFS 71%, OS 75%, CSS 80%) (p < 0.001, p = 0.066 and p = 0.002, respectively). RPA derived four new stages: RPA-I (T1-T4 N0-N2 & EBV DNA <500 copies per mL; PFS 94%, OS 89%, CSS 96%), RPA-II (T1-T4 N0-N2 & EBV DNA ≥500 copies per mL; PFS 80%, OS 83%, CSS 89%), RPA-III (T1-T2 N3; PFS 64%, OS 83%, CSS 83%) and RPA-IVA (T3-T4 N3; PFS 63%, OS 60% and CSS 68%) (all with p < 0.001). AHR using covariate adjustment also yielded a valid classification (I: T1-T2 N0-N2; II: T3-T4 N0-N2 or T1-T2 N3 and III: T3-T4 N3) (all with p < 0.001). However, RPA stages better predicted survival for PS and CSS after bootstrapping replications. Our RPA-based stage groups revealed better survival prediction compared to the eighth edition TNM and the AHR stage groups.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations118
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207