MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014216895 · doi:10.1002/cncr.32855

Outcome analysis of stage I epithelial‐predominant favorable‐histology Wilms tumors: A report from Children's Oncology Group study AREN03B2

2020· article· en· W3014216895 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Parsons, Elizabeth A. Mullen, James I. Geller, Yueh‐Yun Chi, Geetika Khanna, Richard D. Glick, Jennifer H. Aldrink, Kelly Vallance, Yeonil Kim, Conrad V. Fernandez, Jeffrey S. Dome, Elizabeth J. Perlman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthChildren’s Oncology GroupNational Cancer InstituteSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)CogWilms' tumorInternal medicineNephrectomyHistologyChemotherapyConfidence intervalOncologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stage I epithelial-predominant favorable-histology Wilms tumors (EFHWTs) have long been suspected to have an excellent outcome. This study investigates the clinical and pathologic features of patients with stage I EFHWTs to better evaluate the potential for a reduction of chemotherapy and its associated toxicity. METHODS: All patients registered in the Children's Oncology Group (COG) AREN03B2 study between 2006 and 2017 with stage I EFHWTs were identified. EFHWTs were defined as tumors with at least 66% epithelial differentiation, regardless of the degree of differentiation. Clinical information was abstracted from COG records. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated and compared between groups based on age and therapy. RESULTS: The 4-year EFS rate was 96.2% (95% confidence interval, 92%-100%), and the OS rate was 100%; EFS and OS did not statistically significantly differ with the age at diagnosis (<48 vs ≥48 months; P = .37) or treatment (EE4A vs observation only; P = .55). Six events were reported. Three patients developed contralateral tumors and did not otherwise relapse; none of these had nephrogenic rests or a recognized predisposition syndrome. Three patients developed metastatic recurrence; all 3 had received EE4A as their primary therapy after nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate an excellent outcome for stage I EFHWTs with >95% EFS and OS. These data support the utility of investigating the treatment of stage I EFHWTs with observation alone after nephrectomy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207