MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135760817 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.634563

The Diminishing Importance of Primary Site Identification in Cancer of Unknown Primary: A Canadian Single-Center Experience

2021· article· en· W3135760817 on OpenAlexaffabout
Boaz Wong, Michael M. Vickers, Paul Wheatley‐Price

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointLogistic regressionPrimary tumorLung cancerCancerSingle CenterInternal medicineDemographicsOncologyClinical trialMetastasisDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) describes patients with metastatic disease without an identified primary tumor site. Successful diagnosis and treatment of these patients remains difficult. Published guidelines on CUP have highlighted “favorable” subtype groups. We investigated a series of CUP patients to review adherence to guidelines, and identification of primary cancers or “favorable” subtypes. Methods Patients with histologically confirmed CUP at an academic institution from 2012 to 2018 were identified. Patient demographics, tumor presentation, diagnostic work-up and treatment information were retrospectively collected from electronic data records for descriptive analysis and compared to published clinical guidelines. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients where the primary site was identified. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with primary site identification. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to determine factors associated with poorer OS. Results Three hundred and five patients were included with a median follow-up time of 4.3 months. Primary tumor sites were identified in 109 patients (37.5%), which was most commonly lung cancer (33%). Statistical analyses did not identify any demographic or initial presentation factors associated with identifying the primary or not. More diagnostic tests did not increase the likelihood of primary site identification ( P=0.44 ). Patients with an identified primary did not have longer OS than other patients (median 5.2 months vs. 4.7 months, P=0.47 ). 57 patients (18.7%) who had a defined “favorable” subtype experienced superior OS (36.6 months vs. 3.8 months; P<0.0001 ). Further, patients with good prognostic status who followed published treatment guidelines had longer OS (17.6 months vs. 13.2 months; P=0.04 ). Conclusions CUP remains a difficult cancer to diagnose and treat. These results suggest identifying the primary has less impact than anticipated, but particular efforts to identify patients with “favorable” subtypes of CUP is important prognostically.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207