MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047541112 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.pedca19-b63

Abstract B63: Survivorship, vision, and eye salvage following pars plana vitrectomy for residual active or recurrent retinoblastoma

2020· article· en· W3047541112 on OpenAlexaffabout
Junyang Zhao, Zhao Feng, Qiyan Li, Songyi Wu, Liwen Jin, Brenda L. Gallie

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinoblastomaVitrectomyPars planaChemotherapySurgerySurvivorship curveVisual acuityInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Intraocular surgery has long been taboo in the management of eyes with retinoblastoma due to concern of extraocular spread that carries poor survivorship. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and tumor endoresection has recently emerged in China as an effective surgical treatment to salvage eyes with tumor resistant to chemotherapy, the current standard of care. To investigate the safety and efficacy of this novel treatment, we studied survivorship, visual acuity, and eye salvage rate of retinoblastoma children/eyes treated with PPV. Methods: Outcomes were reviewed for 227 children (247 eyes) treated with PPV and endoresection for residual active tumor or recurrent tumor following chemotherapy at 29 Chinese centers between 2013 and 2014. Results: At 5 years following PPV, 14 patients died, 8 related to the eye that had PPV. The 5-year overall survival rate following PPV was 93.7% (95% CI: 90.4% to 97.0%). The 5-year PPV eye-related survival rate (PPVSR) was 96.3% (95% CI: 93.8% to 98.9%). Children with PPV for residual active tumor had better survival than those with PPV for recurrent tumor (5-year PPVSR 98.1% vs. 91.4%, P = .021). Children with 1 to 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (intra-arterial or systemic chemotherapy) prior to PPV had similar survival to children with ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy (98.2% vs. 93.7%, P = .093). Children with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy following PPV had 100% (95% CI: 93.5% to 100%) 5-year PPVSR, not significantly higher than those without adjuvant chemotherapy (100% vs. 94.8%, P = .102). Of 94 eyes with partial or no retinectomy and documented visual acuity, the post-PPV visual acuity was 20/20-20/60 (23, 24%); 20/7-20/160 (6, 6%); 20/17-20/400 (9, 10%); counting fingers, hand motion, or light perception vision (42, 45%); and no light perception (NLP) (14, 15%). Complete retinectomy was performed on 93 of 247 (37.7%) eyes that, as expected, had NLP. The 5-year eye salvage rate following PPV was 80.7% (95% CI: 75.5% to 85.9%). PPV for residual active tumor and recurrent tumor had similar eye salvage rate (82.0% vs. 76.8%, P = .372). Eyes with International Intraocular Retinoblastoma Classification (IIRC) A, B, or C staging had better salvage rate than eyes with IIRC D or E staging (100.0% vs. 78.1%, P = .005). Eyes that received 1 to 3 cycles and ≥4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy had similar salvage rate (81.4% vs. 79.8%, P = .796). Conclusion: We observed that PPV salvaged 80.7% of eyes with residual active tumor after primary chemotherapy or recurrent tumor after remission. The 5-year eye-specific survival was 96.3%, comparable to survivorship using other treatment modalities. More cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve survivorship or eye salvage rate. In this cohort, all children with adjuvant chemotherapy following PPV survived at 5 years. PPV may be a game changer to improve health outcomes of patients with retinoblastoma, with the potential to become the new standard of care. Citation Format: Junyang Zhao, Zhao Xun Feng, Qiyan Li, Songyi Wu, Liwen Jin, Brenda L. Gallie. Survivorship, vision, and eye salvage following pars plana vitrectomy for residual active or recurrent retinoblastoma [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 B63.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207