MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048028639 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.19.01056

Surgical Outcome and Oncological Survival of Osteofibrous Dysplasia-Like and Classic Adamantinomas

2020· article· en· W3048028639 on OpenAlexaff
Emile Schutgens, Piero Picci, Daniel Baumhoer, Rob Pollock, Judith V.M.G. Bovée, Pancras C.W. Hogendoorn, P. D. S. Dijkstra, Anja J. Rueten‐Budde, Paul C. Jutte, Frank Traub, Andreas Leithner, Per‐Ulf Tunn, Philipp T. Funovics, Gwen Sys, Mikel San-Julián, Gerard R. Schaap, H. R. Dürr, Jendrik Hardes, John H. Healey, Rodolfo Capanna, David Biau, Anne Gomez‐Brouchet, Jay S. Wunder, Thomas Cosker, Minna Laitinen, Xiaohui Niu, Viktor Kostiuk, Michiel A. J. van de Sande

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAdamantinomaPathologicalRetrospective cohort studyCohortDiseaseProportional hazards modelSurgeryInternal medicineAmeloblastoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma (OFD-AD) and classic adamantinoma (AD) are rare, neoplastic diseases with only limited data supporting current treatment protocols. We believe that our retrospective multicenter cohort study is the largest analysis of patients with adamantinoma to date. The primary purpose of this study was to describe the disease characteristics and evaluate the oncological outcomes. The secondary purpose was to identify risk factors for local recurrence after surgical treatment and propose treatment guidelines. METHODS: Three hundred and eighteen confirmed cases of OFD-AD and AD for which primary treatment was carried out between 1985 and 2015 were submitted by 22 tertiary bone tumor centers. Proposed clinical risk factors for local recurrence such as size, type, and margins were analyzed using univariable and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 318 cases, 128 were OFD-AD and 190 were AD. The mean age at diagnosis was 17 years (median, 14.5 years) for OFD-AD and 32 years (median, 28 years) for AD; 53% of the patients were female. The mean tumor size in the OFD-AD and AD groups combined was 7.8 cm, measured histologically. Sixteen percent of the patients sustained a pathological fracture prior to treatment. Local recurrence was recorded in 22% of the OFD-AD cases and 24% of the AD cases. None of the recurrences in the OFD-AD group progressed to AD. Metastatic disease was found in 18% of the AD cases and fatal disease, in 11% of the AD cases. No metastatic or fatal disease was reported in the OFD-AD group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that uncontaminated resection margins (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.164, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.092 to 0.290, p < 0.001), pathological fracture (HR = 1.968, 95% CI = 1.076 to 3.600, p = 0.028), and sex (female versus male: HR = 0.535, 95% CI = 0.300 to 0.952, p = 0.033) impacted the risk of local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: OFD-AD and AD are parts of a disease spectrum but should be regarded as different entities. Our results support reclassification of OFD-AD into the intermediate locally aggressive category, based on the local recurrence rate of 22% and absence of metastases. In our study, metastatic disease was restricted to the AD group (an 18% rate). We advocate wide resection with uncontaminated margins including bone and involved periosteum for both OFD-AD and AD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207