MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic significance of sarcopenia in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

2019· article· en· W2946881657 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsty Taylor, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Tina Romagnuolo, Frances Allison, Lucy Xiaolu, Micheal McInnis, Aline Fusco Fares, Geoffrey Liu, Gail Darling, Rebecca Wong, Eric Xueyu Chen, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Dmitry Rozenberg, Elena Elimova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaInternal medicineDysphagiaGastroenterologyAnorexiaBody mass indexEsophageal cancerNauseaCancerWeight lossOncologySurgeryObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4068 Background: Sarcopenia is defined as low skeletal muscle mass and represents a quantifiable marker of frailty. Disease related symptoms of anorexia, nausea and dysphagia, in addition to reduced physical activity contribute to muscle wasting in metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (MESCC) patients. This study set out to evaluate the prognostic utility of sarcopenia and its association with nutritional indices. Methods: MESCC patients (pts) with available abdominal CT imaging, attending Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 2011 and 2016, were identified from the institutional database. Skeletal muscle index (SMI), normalized by height, was calculated at the third lumbar (L3) vertebra using SliceOMatic software. SMI cutoffs for sarcopenia were 34.4cm2/m2 in females and 45.4cm2/m2 in males based on previously established consensus. Nutritional risk index (NRI) was calculated using weight and albumin with malnutrition defined as < 97.5. Results: Of the 58 pts analyzed, 26 presented with de novo MESCC, median age was 64 (range 48-85), 30 pts were ECOG PS ≤1 and 45% received systemic therapy. 93% of pts experienced weight loss > 5% in the 3 months preceding diagnosis and median BMI was 20.4 (range 16.3-34.9). Twenty-four (41%) pts were sarcopenic (SP) with differences in BMI and NRI (p < 0.05) compared to non-sarcopenic (NSP) pts. Median BMI in SP pts was 18.9 (16.3-25.6), 46% had a BMI < 18.5 and none were obese (BMI ≥ 30). By NRI, 58% of SP pts were malnourished. Males comprised 71% of SP pts (p = 0.03) but no difference from NSP MESCC pts was identified with age, race, ECOG PS or smoking status with univariate analysis. Median overall survival (OS) was 6 months; 4.2 in SP pts and 6.2 in NSP pts. Significant difference was identified with NRI (p = .0.009) but not sarcopenia (p = 0.247) or BMI (p = 0.393). With a multi-variate Cox model for NRI and sarcopenia, including age, sex, race, and ECOG PS, only ECOG PS was a significant predictor of mortality, HR for 2-3 vs 0-1 of 5.4 (2.5-11.9) p < 0.001. Conclusions: Sarcopenia at diagnosis was not associated with OS. NRI was superior to BMI alone with respect to discriminating pt outcomes, however ECOG PS was the only measure significantly associated with survival.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→