Relationship between PET response and pathologic response in distal esophageal/gastroesophageal junction cancers: A provincial population-based analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15506 Background: The utility of PET scans (PETs) to predict outcomes after neoadjuvant treatment of DE/GEJ cancers is unclear. We aimed to explore the relationship between PET response and pathologic/clinical outcomes in a real-world setting. Methods: Patients (pts) with DE/GEJ cancer treated with curative intent perioperative chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery in British Columbia from 2009-2018 were included. Retrospective chart review was conducted; pts were stratified into PET responders (R, ≥ 35% decrease in max SUV) or PET non-responders (NR, < 35%) groups. Chi-square and Kaplan Meier were used to test for associations between variables and outcomes. Results: Of 576 pts with locally advanced DE/GEJ cancers, 232 pts were eligible for analysis. Treatment regimens comprised of CROSS (72%), MAGIC (24%) and FLOT (4%). Median age was 66 (IQR 57-72), 85% male, 91% ECOG 0/1, 62% GEJ involvement, and 81% adenocarcinoma histology. Characteristics and treatment regimens were balanced between the PET-R and PET-NR groups (all p>0.05). Median time from end of treatment to PETs was 30 days (IQR 22-36); 67% were PET-R. Pathologic complete response rates (14% vs 13%, p=0.079) were similar for PET-R vs PET-NR, respectively. Discordance rate was 34% between PET vs pathologic response (Table). Aborted surgery rate was higher in the PET-NR group (8% vs 3%, p=0.03); 70% of aborted cases were due to peritoneal involvement. Median overall survival was similar between the groups (PET-R 31.5 mo vs PET-NR 36.1 mo, p=0.616). Conclusions: In our population-based cohort, PET response did not demonstrate prognostic utility. PET-NR were more likely to have their surgeries aborted. The predictive ability of PET in determining surgical resectability should be further investigated to avoid unnecessary high morbidity surgeries.[Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".