Abstract A65: Alveolar soft part sarcoma in children and adolescents: A single-institute retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft tissue tumor that typically affects young patients. Because of the rarity of the disease, the standard treatment is not established. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of pediatric ASPS. Method: A retrospective study was conducted on children and adolescents treated for ASPS at a single center between 2000 and 2018. Results: A total number of 11 patients were evaluated. Median age at diagnosis was 12.6 (range 3.8-16.3) years. Nine (82%) were female. The most common primary sites were limbs (64%). IRS postsurgical clinical group (IRS CG) was I in 2 (18%), III in 3 (27%), and IV in 6 (55%) patients. Of 9 patients with IRS CG III and IV who received chemotherapy, one had a complete response, two had a partial response, and six had progressive disease. One patient showed SD to sunitinib. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 31% and 88%, respectively. The 5-year EFS rate by primary site was 50% for the 7 patients with extremity and 0% for the 4 patients with head and neck (P-value = 0.001). The 5-year OS rate by the primary site was 100% for the 7 patients with extremity and 50% for the 4 patients with head and neck (P-value = 0.027). Conclusion: Localized ASPS has a good prognosis after total resection. If the primary site is head and neck, the prognosis is poor due to difficulty in surgical resection. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have limitations in the cure for patients with metastatic disease. Further studies of ASPS need to achieve development in treatment. Citation Format: Se Na Kang, Jung Yoon Choi, Bo Kyung Kim, Hong Yul Ahn, Kyung Taek Hong, Hyoung Jin Kang, Han Soo Kim, Jung Eun Cheon, Sung Hye Park, Hee Young Shin. Alveolar soft part sarcoma in children and adolescents: A single-institute retrospective analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Advances in Pediatric Cancer Research; 2019 Sep 17-20; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(14 Suppl):Abstract nr A65.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".