MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924642225 · doi:10.1002/cncr.32025

Validation of NRG oncology/RTOG‐0129 risk groups for HPV‐positive and HPV‐negative oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: Implications for risk‐based therapeutic intensity trials

2019· article· en· W2924642225 on OpenAlexaff
Carole Fakhry, Qiang Zhang, Maura L. Gillison, Phuc Felix Nguyen‐Tân, David I. Rosenthal, Randal S. Weber, Louise Lambert, Andy Trotti, William Barrett, Wade L. Thorstad, Sue S. Yom, Stuart J. Wong, John A. Ridge, Shyam Rao, Sharon A. Spencer, A. Fortin, David Raben, Jonathan Harris, Quynh‐Thu Le

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité de MontréalMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNRG OncologyEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyHyperfractionationClinical trialRelative riskCetuximabCancerDose fractionationConfidence intervalColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-0129 recursive partitioning analysis was the basis for risk-based therapeutic intensification trials for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). To the authors' knowledge, the question of whether RTOG-0129 overall survival (OS) estimates for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups are similar in other data sets or applicable to progression-free survival (PFS) is unknown. Therefore, the authors evaluated whether survival differences between RTOG-0129 risk groups persist at 5 years, are reproducible in an independent clinical trial, and are applicable to PFS, and whether toxicities differ across risk groups. METHODS: Prospective randomized clinical trials were analyzed retrospectively. RTOG-0129 evaluated standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy concurrent with cisplatin. RTOG-0522 compared the combination of cisplatin and accelerated fractionation with or without cetuximab. Patients with OPC with available p16 status and tobacco history were eligible. RESULTS: There was a total of 260 patients and 287 patients, respectively, from RTOG-0129 and RTOG-0522, with median follow-ups for surviving patients of 7.9 years (range, 1.7-9.9 years) and 4.7 years (range, 0.1-7.0 years), respectively. Previous OS differences in RTOG-0129 persisted at 5 years. In RTOG-0522, the 5-year OS rates for the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 88.1%, 69.9%, and 45.1%, respectively (P for trend, <.001). The 5-year PFS rates for the same 3 groups were 72.9%, 56.1%, and 42.2%, respectively. In RTOG-0522 among a subgroup of patients considered to be at very good risk (p16-positive disease, smoking history of ≤10 pack-years, and classified with T1-T2 disease with ipsilateral lymph nodes measuring ≤6 cm or T3 disease without contralateral or >6 cm lymph nodes), the 5-year OS and PFS rates were 93.8% and 82.2%, respectively. Overall rates of acute and late toxicities were similar by risk group. CONCLUSIONS: RTOG-0129 risk groups persisted at 5 years and were reproducible in RTOG-0522. However, there was variability in the estimates. These data underscore the importance of long-term follow-up and appropriate patient selection in therapeutic deintensification trials.

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)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations83
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207