Genetic risk assessment for hereditary RCC: Report from the consensus panel meeting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
615 Background: While many genes are now known to be associated with hereditary kidney cancer syndromes, there is a paucity of guidelines or uniform consensus on genetic testing for these patients. An expert panel was organized to assess who, what, when and how patients should be evaluated and what testing should be initiated. Methods: A national, multidisciplinary, panel of experts in urology, medical oncology, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors and patient advocates with background and knowledge in hereditary syndromic kidney cancer convened in person in September 2019. A renal cell carcinoma (RCC) genetic risk assessment questionnaire consisting of 52 questions was compiled prior to the meeting using modified Delphi methodology. The questions were then discussed and reviewed with uniform consensus defined as a minimum of 85% agreement in accordance with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Results: The panel consisted of twenty-six attendees represented by urologists (43%), medical oncologist (23%), genetic counselors (13%), clinical geneticists (7%), and patient advocates (3%). The questionnaire consisted of fifty-five statements focusing on who, what, when and how genetic testing should be performed in a patient suspected of hereditary RCC syndrome. A >85% agreement was reached on 30/52 statements with 18/25 (72%) achieving consensus addressing “who”, 2/6 (33%) achieving consensus in “what’ category, 2/7 (29%) in ‘when’ and 4/6 (67%) on how. The questions with least consensus were found in the “what/when?” category with only 4/13 questions with minimum 85% agreement. Specific areas of debate included an age cutoff for prompting a genetic risk assessment as well as need for familial testing in patients with variants of unknown significance. Conclusions: Despite experience of the panel in management of hereditary RCC, the consensus was reached only on 66% of genetic testing. While many issues will need to be discussed further, those statements with consensus may be used to guide physicians and patients on who, what, when and how genetic RCC risk assessment should be performed.
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 | 0.061 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".