MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945550010 · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.679

Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

2019· review· en· W2945550010 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Cohen, Aime Powell, Steffen Böhm, C. Blake Gilks, Colin J.R. Stewart, Tarek Meniawy, Max Bulsara, Stefanie Avril, Eleanor C. Brockbank, Tjalling Bosse, Gustavo Rubino de Azevedo Focchi, Raji Ganesan, Rosalind Glasspool, Brooke E. Howitt, Hyun Soo Kim, Jung‐Yun Lee, Nhu D. Le, Michelle Lockley, Ranjit Manchanda, Trupti Mandalia, W. Glenn McCluggage, Iain A. McNeish, Divya Midha, Radhika Srinivasan, Yun Yi Tan, Rachael van der Griend, Mayu Yunokawa, Gian Franco Zannoni, Naveena Singh, Simi Aggarwal, Holger Bronger, Elizabeth Brown, Martin Buck, Syed Abdullah Javaid Bukhari, Edwina Coghlan, Nichola Cope, Michelle Samora de Almeida, Cor D. de Kroon, Andrew Dean, Michael-John Devlin, Helena Møgelbjerg Ditzel, Enken Drecoll, Takahiro Ebata, Anna Fagotti, Asma Faruqi, Laura Feeney, Kavita Gupta, Ian Harley, Frediano Inzani, Arjun Jeyarajah, Mei Hui Eleanor Koay, Judith R. Kroep, Yee Leung, Alice R. Loft, Daniel Magee, Sarah McKenna, David Millan, Joanne Millar, Rowan Miller, Ganendra Raj Mohan, Sohail Mughal, Asima Mukhopadhyay, Sérgio Mancini Nicolau, James Nevin, Abigail S. Oakley, Mary Quigley, Bhavana Rai, Arvind Rajwanshi, Stuart Salfinger, Giovanni Scambia, Kate Scatchard, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Bryony Simcock, Priya Singh, Kyle C. Strickland, Vainta Suri, Sheeba Syed, Peter Sykes, Kenji Tamura, Adeline Tan, Jason Tan, Emily F. Thompson, Anna V. Tinker, Georgia Trevisan, Maria Gabriela Baumgarten Kuster Uyeda, Michelle Vaughan, Wilko Weichert, Anthony T. Williams, Sarah Williams, Hiroshi Yoshida, Pier Carlo Zorzato

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlVancouver General Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKBarts Charity
KeywordsMedicinePathologicalSerous fluidChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicineSerous carcinomaMeta-analysisOvarian carcinomaCarcinomaGynecologyOvarian cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: There is a need to develop and validate biomarkers for treatment response and survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). The chemotherapy response score (CRS) stratifies patients into complete/near-complete (CRS3), partial (CRS2), and no/minimal (CRS1) response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Our aim was to review current evidence to determine whether the CRS is prognostic in women with tubo-ovarian HGSC treated with NACT. METHODS: We established an international collaboration to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, pooling individual patient data from 16 sites in 11 countries. Patients had stage IIIC/IV HGSC, 3-4 NACT cycles and >6-months follow-up. Random effects models were used to derive combined odds ratios in the pooled population to investigate associations between CRS and progression free and overall survival (PFS and OS). RESULTS: 877 patients were included from published and unpublished studies. Median PFS and OS were 15 months (IQR 5-65) and 28 months (IQR 7-92) respectively. CRS3 was seen in 249 patients (28%). The pooled hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS for CRS3 versus CRS1/CRS2 were 0·55 (95% CI, 0·45-0·66; P < 0·001) and 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·85, P = 0·002) respectively; no heterogeneity was identified (PFS: Q = 6·42, P = 0·698, I2 = 0·0%; OS: Q = 6·89, P = 0·648, I2 = 0·0%). CRS was significantly associated with PFS and OS in multivariate models adjusting for age and stage. Of 306 patients with known germline BRCA1/2 status, those with BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 80) were more likely to achieve CRS3 (P = 0·027). CONCLUSIONS: CRS3 was significantly associated with improved PFS and OS compared to CRS1/2. This validation of CRS in a real-world setting demonstrates it to be a robust and reproducible biomarker with potential to be incorporated into therapeutic decision-making and clinical trial design.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.027
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations121
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207