MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor: A multi-institutional study from the pediatric surgical oncology research collaborative.

2021· article· en· W3167948962 on OpenAlexaff
Barrie S. Rich, Joanna Fishbein, Timothy B. Lautz, Nathan S. Rubalcava, Rodrigo Romao, Bindi Naik‐Mathuria, Stephanie F. Polites, Eugene S. Kim, Andreana Bütter, Scott S. Short, Marcus M. Malek, Daniel S. Rhee, Alan F. Utria, Sarah Jane Commander, Dave R. Lal, Nelson Piché, Andrew J. Murphy, David H. Rothstein, Roshni Dasgupta, Richard D. Glick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortMalignancyInterquartile rangeAnaplastic lymphoma kinaseInternal medicineOncologySurgeryRadiologyPleural effusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10024 Background: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) is a mesenchymal neoplasm of intermediate malignancy, predominantly seen in children and young adults. Given its rarity, data are limited. We describe the largest cohort of patients with IMT to date, with an aim to further characterize this poorly understood tumor. Methods: A multi-institutional review was performed at 18 North American hospitals participating in the Pediatric Surgical Oncology Research Collaborative to identify IMT patients ≤39 years, diagnosed from 2000-2018. Descriptive statistics are described as median and interquartile range. Multivariable analysis was used to identify predictors of event free survival (EFS). Results: 182 patients were identified with a median age of 11 years (5-17); 52% were female. 33% of tumors were thoracic, 26% abdominal/pelvic, 20% head/neck, and 14% genitourinary. Common presenting symptoms included pain (29%), respiratory symptoms (24%), weight loss (12%), and a palpable mass (10%). Median tumor size was 3.9 cm (1.9-6.5). Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) overexpression was identified via immunohistochemistry in 53% of patients tested. One third of patients had abnormal cytogenetics, with 12% of the entire cohort having an ALK mutation. 7% of patients had distant disease at diagnosis. 13% of patients received neoadjuvant therapy including chemotherapy (3%), ALK inhibitor (4%), radiation (0.5%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) (7%), or steroids (2%). Of those who underwent resection with known margin status (n = 158), 66% had complete resection, 20% had microscopic positive margins, and 14% had gross residual disease. Just over 40% of patients had an en bloc resection of involved organs, most commonly lung (26%). 21% of patients received adjuvant therapy, including chemotherapy (3%), ALK inhibitor (9%), radiation (0.5%), NSAIDs (8%), or steroids (5%). 12% of all patients received an ALK inhibitor: 24% neoadjuvant, 62% adjuvant, and 14% without surgery. Median follow-up time was 36 months (14-69). Overall 5-year survival (OS) was 95% and 5-year EFS was 80%. Predictors of recurrence included respiratory symptoms, larger tumor size, or distant disease at diagnosis. Gender, race, age and primary site were not predictive of EFS. Likewise, there was no association of ALK overexpression or ALK mutation with EFS. The presence of gross or microscopic margins following resection was not associated with recurrence. Conclusions: IMT is a rare tumor with favorable OS. Five year recurrence rate was 20%. Presenting with respiratory symptoms, larger tumor size, or metastatic disease was associated with recurrence, while ALK positivity was not. Notably, a positive margin after resection was not associated with increased recurrence, indicating that aggressive attempts at surgical resection that would compromise form or function may not be warranted.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory DiseasesFrench-language works237,207