Age, Diagnostic Category, Tumor Grade, and Mitosis-Karyorrhexis Index Are Independently Prognostic in Neuroblastoma: An INRG Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) stratifies the treatment of patients with neuroblastoma on the basis of a combination of biomarkers that include age and tumor histology classified by age-linked International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification (INPC) criteria. By definition, this leads to a duplication of the prognostic contribution of age. The individual histologic features underlying the INPC have prognostic strength and are incorporated in the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group classification schema. Here, we analyzed data in the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Data Commons to validate the prognostic strength of the underlying INPC criteria and to determine whether a risk classification devoid of the confounding of age and INPC criteria will identify new prognostic subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS Event-free survival of patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2002 (cohort 1; n = 10,104) and between 2003 and 2016 (cohort 2; n = 8,761) was analyzed. Recursive partitioning with univariate Cox models of event-free survival (“survival tree regression”) was performed using (1) individual INPC criteria (age at diagnosis, histologic category, mitosis-karyorrhexis index (MKI), grade of differentiation) and (2) factors in (1) plus other COG-risk biomarkers (International Neuroblastoma Staging System [INSS] stage, MYCN status, ploidy). RESULTS The independent prognostic ability of age, histologic category, MKI, and grade were validated. Four histologic prognostic groups were identified (< 18 months with low v high MKI, and ≥ 18 months with differentiating v undifferentiated/poorly differentiating tumors). Compared with survival trees generated with established COG risk criteria, an additional prognostic subgroup was identified and validated when individual histologic features were analyzed in lieu of INPC. CONCLUSION Replacing INPC with individual histologic features in the COG risk classification will eliminate confounding, facilitate international harmonization of risk classification, and provide a schema for more precise prognostication and refined therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".