MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic factors in advanced seminoma: An analysis from the IGCCCG Update Consortium.

2020· article· en· W3007915670 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Collette, Gedske Daugaard, Ronald de Wit, A. Tryakin, Costantine Albany, Olof Ståhl, Karim Fizazi, Jourik A. Gietema, Ugo De Giorgi, Aaron R. Hansen, Darren R. Feldman, Fay Cafferty, Torgrim Tandstad, Xavier García del Muro, Robert Huddart, Christopher J. Sweeney, Andrea Necchi, Samson Yaekob Assele, Silke Gillessen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineClinical endpointOncologyMedicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

386 Background: Extrapulmonary visceral metastases were the only adverse prognostic factor among 660 advanced seminomas in the original classification of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) treated between 1975 and 1990 and published 1997. Outcomes may have improved with current era management and additional prognostic factors may exist. Methods: To update the original IGCCCG classification, an international consortium (30 centers/groups) provided data on 2458 advanced seminoma patients treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2015 in prospective cohorts or clinical trials. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were calculated. CART analysis was used to identify prognostic factors inside original IGCCCG good risk group to further refine the classification. Among eligible 2302 patients with full data, a training set of 1509 patients (1437 good risk and 72 intermediate risk) was used for model building. An independent set of 793 patients was set aside for validation. Primary endpoints were PFS and OS at 5 years. Results: Compared with the 1997 IGCCCG benchmarks, the 5-year PFS rates increased to 88.7% (87.2 - 89.9%) and 78.4% (69.6 - 84.9%) in good and intermediate IGCCCG patients. The corresponding 5-year OS rates were 95.4% (94.4 - 96.2%) and 87.2% (79.2 - 92.2%). CART analysis identified LDH with a cut-point of 2.5 x ULN as the single most significant prognostic factor in good risk patients with 5-y PFS rates of 92.1% (90.3 - 93.6%) and 79.2% (74.2 - 83.4%) in low and high LDH subgroups. (HR = 2.90, P < .0001). Good risk patients with LDH above 2.5 x ULN (313 of 1411 patients) performed similarly to the intermediate IGCCCG patients; hCG was not independently prognostic. Conclusions: In this modern era series, the original IGCCCG still significantly discriminates between "good” and "intermediate" risk metastatic seminoma, but with significantly improved PFS and OS in both risk groups. LDH at a cut-off point of 2.5 x ULN further refines this classification and identifies men with intermediate risk seminoma in the absence of extrapulmonary visceral metastases. This refinement will be relevant to improve future seminoma care.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207