MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Malignancy in Patients with Crohnʼs Disease: Data from the TREAT™ Registry with More Than 5 Years of Follow-up

2011· article· en· W2977983317 on OpenAlexaff
G. R. Lichenstein, Brian Feagan, Romain Cohen, Bruce Salzberg, Robert H. Diamond, Wayne Langholff, Anil Londhe, William J. Sandborn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMalignancyInfliximabIncidence (geometry)PopulationCancer registryHazard ratioEpidemiologyBreast cancerCancerDiseaseSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The association between malignancy and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy remains under investigation. Methods: We prospectively evaluated the incidence of malignancy in the large-scale, observational TREAT Registry, which examines the long-term outcomes of various treatments, including infliximab, used in the management of Crohn's disease (CD) in community-based and academic practice settings in North America. The influences of baseline patient (pt), disease characteristics and medication use were assessed via multivariate regression analysis and generation of hazard ratios (HRs). Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined by dividing the number of patients with malignancies observed (in TREAT) with expected number (for the general U.S. population) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology End Results [SEER] 2009 database. Results: As of February 23, 2010, 6,273 pts were enrolled: 3,764 received infliximab and 2,509 received other-treatments-only. Incidences of malignancies were similar between infliximab-treated pts and pts receiving other-treatments-only within the categories of hematologic malignancies, lymphoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and malignant solid tumors (Table 1). Baseline age, disease duration, smoking, and immunomodulator therapy, but not infliximab therapy were significant predictors of malignancy (Table 2). Results of comparisons between the TREAT Registry and SEER database yielded 95% CIs containing 1 for all categories of malignancy assessed, indicating no significant difference, with the exception of breast cancer and lymphoma (Table 1). Breast cancer was less common in TREAT than SEER, and for lymphoma, the SIR was approximately twice that of the background population in both the infliximabtreated and other-treatments-only cohorts.Table: Table. Malignancies in TREAT: Comparison versus SEER databaseTable: Table. Malignancies in TREAT: effect of risk factorsConclusion: Infliximab did not significantly affect the risk of malignancies; immunomodulator use, age, duration of disease and smoking independently predicted time to first malignancy. Consistent with reports in the literature, CD patients, independent of infliximab treatment, appear to have a higher lymphoma risk than the general U.S. population. Disclosure: GR Lichtenstein: Investigator, Centocor Research and Development, Inc.; B Feagan: Investigator, Centocor Research and Development, Inc.; RD Cohen: Investigator, Centocor Research and Development, Inc.; BA Salzberg: Investigator, Centocor Research and Development, Inc.; RH Diamond: Employee, Centocor Ortho Biotech Services, LLC; W Langholff: Consultant, Centocor Research and Development, Inc.; A Londhe: Employee, Johnson & Johnson PRD.; WJ Sandborn: Investigator, Centocor Research and Development, Inc. This research was supported by an industry grant from This study was sponsored by Centocor Research and Development, Inc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→