MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinicopathological features and treatment outcomes of young patients with gastric and esophageal cancers.

2020· article· en· W3005303261 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren A. Beck, Lucy Xiaolu, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Chihiro Suzuki, Di Jiang, Geoffrey Liu, Eric Xueyu Chen, Jennifer J. Knox, Rebecca Wong, Savtaj S. Brar, Carol J. Swallow, Jonathan Yeung, Gail Darling, James Conner, Elena Elimova, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRegimenGastroenterologyEsophageal cancerCancerChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)Charlson comorbidity indexPopulationAdenocarcinomaOncologySurgeryRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16577 Background: Gastric and esophageal (GE) cancers most commonly occur in older adults in their 60’s.However, there are inconsistent reports about prognosis in adolescent and young adult (AYA) pts, and treatment patterns and outcomes in this population have not been well characterized. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed for AYA (age 18-40 years) pts with histologic diagnosis of GE cancers who presented to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2008 to 2016. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 57 AYA GE cancer pts (30 gastric, 27 esophageal). Baseline features included: median age 35 years, 51% female (70% in gastric, 30% in esophageal), 82% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, 82% Charlson Comorbidity Index 0, 54% stage IV. For gastric pts, 53% had diffuse subtype and 47% had signet ring adenocarcinoma. Most had negative family history (77%). Curative intent and palliative treatment was used in 23 (40%) and 34 pts (60%) respectively. In curative pts, 48% had neoadjuvant therapy, 52% had upfront surgery. Of pts who underwent curative resection, 62% had pT3/T4 and 38% had pN2/N3 disease; 5-year OS rate was 37% (95% CI 20-67). Of the palliative pts, 91% received systemic therapy. First-line regimen included triplet (81%) and doublet chemotherapy (13%), administered for a median of 6 cycles. Median PFS was 7.4 months. Second- and third-line treatments were administered in 14 and 3 pts respectively, 1 pt was treated beyond third-line. Median OS in palliative pts was 12.1 months (95% CI 8-21.3). Conclusions: Our gastric AYA pts had increased female predominance and diffuse histology. Many AYA pts had advanced GE cancer at diagnosis, with over half of pts presenting with metastatic disease. In both the curative and palliative setting, AYA pts did not appear to have better survival outcomes despite having few comorbidities, suggesting they may have more aggressive biology.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207