MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111280014 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.566

NCOG-28. SURGERY FOR RECURRENT GBM IMPROVES SURVIVAL INDEPENDENT OF PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

2020· article· en· W3111280014 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew Voisin, Gelareh Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortProportional hazards modelInternal medicineOverall survivalOncologySurgerySurvival analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND The survival benefit of surgery for recurrent GBM in the current literature is variable, and often attributed to improvements in surgical technique over time. Studies examining outcomes over prolonged periods are lacking. The primary objective of our study was to determine if surgery for recurrent GBM confers a survival benefit compared to patients not undergoing repeat surgery. The secondary objective of our study was to investigate the effect of known prognostic factors on survival for patients undergoing repeat surgery for GBM. METHODS We analyzed our brain tumour biobank database from 1992 to 2018 for all adult patients that underwent repeat surgery for primary recurrent GBM. This cohort was compared to publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Survival and prognostic factors were compared within and between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS A total of 676 patients were included (surgery cohort = 91, non-surgery cohort = 585). The surgery group had a lower age at diagnosis (50.6 vs 58.2 years old, p = < 0.001) and higher Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) (81.4 vs 77.5, p = 0.002) at diagnosis than the non-surgery group. Other known prognostic factors including IDH status and MGMT methylation status were balanced between groups. Overall median survival was higher in the surgery group than the non-surgery group (30.6 months vs 13.9 months, p = < 0.0001). Within the surgery group, prognostic factors including age, sex, KPS, IDH status, MGMT status, extent of resection by surgeon, tumour location, and time to recurrence were not associated with additional survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS Patients that undergo surgery for recurrent GBM are of younger age and lower KPS at time of initial diagnosis. In patients that undergo repeat surgery, known patient and tumour prognostic factors are not associated with additional survival benefit.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207