MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Recurrent vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: An analysis of clinical outcomes by treatment modality including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

2020· article· en· W3031150485 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Andrews Wright, Hari Iyer, Johanne I. Weberpals

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyChemotherapySurgeryStage (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18033 Background: Recurrent VSCC carries a poor prognosis, but real-world data on outcomes with standard treatment options are lacking. Specifically, progression free survival (PFS) in recurrent VSCC is ill-defined which is problematic for the design of clinical trials with novel therapies. We aim to address the paucity of outcome data in recurrent VSCC and to compare PFS and overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a combination of these treatments. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified 246 pts from 2000-2018 diagnosed with VSCC treated at the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center and 61 pts with recurrent disease. Data collected included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, recurrence pattern, and treatment modality (surgery only, surgery with chemotherapy, surgery with radiation, surgery with chemoradiation, chemoradiation only, chemotherapy only, or radiation only). Descriptive statistical analysis is reported. Results: Among all study pts, the stage distribution was stage I: 28%, II: 19%, III: 43% and IV: 10%. 61% of pts had one recurrence, 36% had two recurrences, and 3% had three recurrences. The 5-year survival rate was 78% for non-recurrent VSCC vs. 33% for recurrent cases. The median OS for all recurrent and non-recurrent cases was 3.7 years and 13.5 years, respectively. For primary treatment, 87% underwent surgical treatment, of which 60% also had radiation or chemoradiation. The most common treatments for first recurrence were: surgery (25%), radiation (20%), no treatment (16%) and chemotherapy (14%), and for second recurrence: no treatment (50%), radiation (25%), surgery (17%) and chemotherapy (8%). The median PFS after primary treatment and after first and second recurrences were 8.7, 5.3 and 1.4 months (mo), respectively, with no significant difference between treatment regimens. However, when grouped (surgery with or without chemotherapy, radiation or chemoradiation vs. non-surgical management), there was a significant PFS benefit for surgical (15.6 mo) over non-surgical management (0.7 mo) in the treatment of a second recurrence (p = 0.05). Conclusions: At our centre, surgery and radiation have been the mainstay of treatment for recurrent VSCC with particular advantage of surgery in the treatment of a second recurrence. Our study establishes a baseline for VSCC outcomes following standard treatment. Accurate PFS data is an important outcome for the design of future studies in recurrent VSCC with new drug therapies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→