MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029682864 · doi:10.1002/cncr.32958

Results of Treatment for Patients With Multicentric or Bilaterally Predisposed Unilateral Wilms Tumor (AREN0534): A report from the Children's Oncology Group

2020· article· en· W3029682864 on OpenAlexaff
Peter F. Ehrlich, Yueh‐Yun Chi, Murali Chintagumpala, Fredric A. Hoffer, Elizabeth J. Perlman, John A. Kalapurakal, Brett Tornwall, Anne B. Warwick, Robert C. Shamberger, Geetika Khanna, Thomas E. Hamilton, Kenneth W. Gow, Arnold C. Paulino, Eric J. Gratias, Elizabeth A. Mullen, James I. Geller, Paul E. Grundy, Conrad V. Fernandez, Jeffrey S. Dome

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyWilms' tumorChemotherapyRadiation therapyHistologyAnaplasiaStage (stratigraphy)AniridiaSurgeryBiopsyInternal medicinePathologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A primary objective of Children's Oncology Group study AREN0534 (Treatment for Patients With Multicentric or Bilaterally Predisposed, Unilateral Wilms Tumor) was to facilitate partial nephrectomy in 25% of children with bilaterally predisposed unilateral tumors (Wilms tumor/aniridia/genitourinary anomalies/range of developmental delays [WAGR] syndrome; and multifocal and overgrowth syndromes). The purpose of this prospective study was to achieve excellent event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) while preserving renal tissue through preoperative chemotherapy, completing definitive surgery by 12 weeks from diagnosis, and modifying postoperative chemotherapy based on histologic response. METHODS: The treating institution identified whether a predisposition syndrome existed. Patients underwent a central review of imaging studies through the biology and classification study AREN03B2 and then were eligible to enroll on AREN0534. Patients were treated with induction chemotherapy determined by localized or metastatic disease on imaging (and histology if a biopsy had been undertaken). Surgery was based on radiographic response at 6 or 12 weeks. Further chemotherapy was determined by histology. Patients who had stage III or IV disease with favorable histology received radiotherapy as well as those who had stage I through IV anaplasia. RESULTS: In total, 34 patients were evaluable, including 13 males and 21 females with a mean age at diagnosis of 2.79 years (range, 0.49-8.78 years). The median follow-up was 4.49 years (range, 1.67-8.01 years). The underlying diagnosis included Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome in 9 patients, hemihypertrophy in 9 patients, multicentric tumors in 10 patients, WAGR syndrome in 2 patients, a solitary kidney in 2 patients, Denys-Drash syndrome in 1 patient, and Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome in 1 patient. The 4-year EFS and OS rates were 94% (95% CI, 85.2%-100%) and 100%, respectively. Two patients relapsed (1 tumor bed, 1 abdomen), and none had disease progression during induction. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 criteria, radiographic responses included a complete response in 2 patients, a partial response in 21 patients, stable disease in 11 patients, and progressive disease in 0 patients. Posttherapy histologic classification was low-risk in 13 patients (including the 2 complete responders), intermediate-risk in 15 patients, and high-risk in 6 patients (1 focal anaplasia and 5 blastemal subtype). Prenephrectomy chemotherapy facilitated renal preservation in 22 of 34 patients (65%). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized approach of preoperative chemotherapy, surgical resection within 12 weeks, and histology-based postoperative chemotherapy results in excellent EFS, OS, and preservation of renal parenchyma.

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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations71
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207