MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic significance of nutritional markers in metastatic gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

2020· article· en· W3030769538 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy Xiaolu, Kirsty Taylor, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Chihiro Suzuki, Reut Anconina, Michael J. Allen, Marta Honório, Yvonne Bach, Frances Allison, Eric Xueyu Chen, Jonathan Yeung, Gail Darling, Rebecca Wong, Sangeetha Kalimuthu, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Elena Elimova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaInternal medicineGastroenterologyWeight lossCancerBody mass indexMalnutritionEsophageal cancerChemotherapySurgeryObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4557 Background: Malnutrition and sarcopenia (defined as low skeletal muscle mass) are recognized as poor prognostic factors in many cancers. Studies to date in gastroesophageal cancer have largely focused on patients (pts) undergoing curative intent surgery. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic utility of nutritional markers and sarcopenia in pts with de novo metastatic gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). Methods: Pts with de novo metastatic GEA seen at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2010-2016 with available pre-treatment abdominal computed tomography imaging were identified from an institutional database. Nutritional index (NRI) was calculated using weight and albumin, with moderate/severe malnutrition defined as NRI < 97.5. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) normalized by height was calculated at the L3 level using Slice-O-Matic software. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI < 34.4cm2/m2 in women and < 45.4cm2/m2 in men based on previously established consensus. Results: Of 175 consecutive pts, median age was 61, 69% were male, 79% had ECOG performance status 0-1, and 71% received chemotherapy. Median BMI was 24.2 (range 15.7-39.8), 70% of pts had > 5% weight loss in the preceding 3 months, and 29% had moderate/severe malnutrition. 68 pts (39%) were sarcopenic, of whom 46% were malnourished. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.3 months (95% CI 7.3-11.4) for all pts. OS was significantly worse in malnourished pts (5.5 vs 10.9 months, p = 0.000475) and displayed a non-significant trend in sarcopenic pts (7.8 vs 10.6 months, p = 0.186). On univariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001), number of metastatic sites (p = 0.029) and NRI (p < 0.001) were significant prognostic factors, while BMI (p = 0.57) and sarcopenia (p = 0.19) were not. On multivariable Cox PH analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001) and NRI (p = 0.025) remained significant as poor prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: This study demonstrates in a large cohort of de novo metastatic GEA pts that ECOG and NRI were significantly associated with poor OS. NRI was superior to BMI alone. Early identification of malnourished pts using NRI may allow for supportive interventions to optimize nutritional status. Further study is needed to determine whether these factors can be modified to improve prognosis in these pts.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→