Utility of PET/CT in primary identification and management of cancers of unknown primary.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e18219 Background: The role of PET/CT in staging and management of cancers of unknown primary (CUP) is poorly defined. Our study sought to evaluate PET/CT versus standard CT in determining the primary site, lymph node status and solid organ metastases, and assess whether results of PET scans altered management of patients with CUP. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of CUP patients to measure concordance of PET/CT and CT scans in patients diagnosed with CUP at two Western Canadian academic centres; the Cross Cancer Institute and BC Cancer Agencies from 2008 to 2015. Results: We identified 244 patients who had standard CT and PET/CT during their work-up. Of the 70 patients whose primary identification status was recorded, standard CT imaging detected 16.1% of primaries compared to 12.1% on PET/CT. 63.3% of primaries were concordantly identified on both modalities. PET/CT identified 2 primaries not seen on CT whereas standard CT identified 9 primaries not seen on PET/CT. Concordance rates between PET/CTs and standard CTs were 77.9% and 93.9% regarding lymph node status and extent of metastases, respectively. PET/CT identified a greater extent lymph node involvement in patients; 93.8% versus 79.0%. (CCOR = 2.92, 95% CI = 0.87-9.72) and identified a greater extent of solid organ involvement; 96.5% versus 92.4%. (CCOR = 45.25, 95% CI = 7.79-262.78). Data from the CCI of patients who had discordant imaging in either domain or identification of primary showed no cases in which PET/CT alone provided information that changed patient management. Conclusions: Our results suggest PET/CT scans do not provide additional diagnostic information with respect to identifying the primary site but may be superior in clarifying extent of metastases and nodal status though this did not alter therapy. Future studies investigating the impact of PET/CT scans on management and cost effectiveness in CUP are critical.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".