MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007462644 · doi:10.5430/jst.v10n1p18

Advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma – Ain Shams Clinical Oncology Department Experience

2020· article· en· W3007462644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Nagy, Mona Kamal, Hesham El Halawani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaInternal medicinePathologicalRetrospective cohort studyClinical OncologyOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is a rare tumor and till recently few treatment options were available. It is poorly understood why people develop RCC since only a few etiologic factors have been clinically identified as risk factors for RCC.Purpose: To analyze our experience at Ain Shams University Clinical Oncology department in Egypt with patients presenting with advanced renal cell carcinoma to provide a correlations between clinic-pathological factors, treatment and survival outcomes.Methodology: Retrospective review of the data of 54 patients who were diagnosed as RCC and presented to Ain Shams University Clinical Oncology department in Egypt from 1 May 2013 till 1 May 2015. Descriptive and clinic-pathological data were described using simple and relative frequencies. Survival outcome for the patients will be described using Kaplan Meier curves stratified according to morphology, age group and treatment received.Results: The sample included 54 patients (53.7% were males) of whom 14.3% were less than 40 years and 3.7% were elderly (≥ 70 years old). The median age was 55.5 years (SD ± 13.6 , range 19-71). Median PFS was 6.5 months (SD ± 12.3846 Range 43) while the median OS was 13 months (SD ± 12.161 Range 46). PFS in patients aged below 55.5 years was 9 months (95% CI=6.509-11.491) compared to 4 months (95% CI=2.704-5.296) in older patients (p = .004). PFS in patients who achieved PR after sunitinb was 17 months (95% CI=6.916-27.084) compared to 5 months (95% CI=3.699-6.301) in patients who didn’t achieved PR (p < .001). OS in patients aged below 55.5 years was 15 months (95% CI=9.131-20.869) compared to 11 months (95% CI=8.947-13.053) in older patients (p = .012). Favorable pathology status was associated with prolonged OS of 14 months (95% CI= 9.403-18.597) versus 11 months (95% CI=8.363-13.637) for unfavourable pathology status (p = .11). Low grades histopathogy was associated with prolonged OS of 44 months (95% CI= 38.456-49.544) versus 12 months (95% CI=10.077-13.923) for higher grades (p = < .001).Conclusion: Multivariate analyses supported a conclusion that younger age was an independent prognostic factor for survival along with other known risk factors such as tumor grade and pathology status.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207