MP61-08 TOWARDS PERSONALIZED CARE OF CT1A PAPILLARY RCC DIAGNOSED ON BIOPSY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation/Staging/Surveillance III (MP61)1 Sep 2021MP61-08 TOWARDS PERSONALIZED CARE OF CT1A PAPILLARY RCC DIAGNOSED ON BIOPSY Johan Björklund, Douglas C Cheung, Robert J Hamilton, John Kachura, Michael Jewett, Alexandre R Zlotta, and Antonio Finelli Johan BjörklundJohan Björklund More articles by this author , Douglas C CheungDouglas C Cheung More articles by this author , Robert J HamiltonRobert J Hamilton More articles by this author , John KachuraJohn Kachura More articles by this author , Michael JewettMichael Jewett More articles by this author , Alexandre R ZlottaAlexandre R Zlotta More articles by this author , and Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002101.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Papillary Renal Cell Carcinomas (pRCC) are divided histologically into type 1 (pRCC1) and type 2 (pRCC2), but there are histological subtypes of pRCC that are unclassifiable (pRCCX). The subtypes cannot be discerned on imaging, but are clinically relevant: pRCC2 is associated with more aggressive disease, where pRCC1 carries a relatively low risk of metastases. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and pathologic outcomes for biopsy-proven pRCC small renal masses (SRM) within our institutional database. METHODS: All SRM with a first pRCC histology at renal biopsy were included between 1994 to 2020 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Patients were evaluated for treatment strategy, follow-up, intervention, and pathologic concordance on subsequent nephrectomy. The pRCC was divided into pRCC1, pRCC2 and pRCCX if no subtype was specified. Active surveillance (AS) was defined as not undergoing intervention within 1 year of biopsy diagnosis. RESULTS: 178 SRM with biopsy-proven pRCC were identified. On their first diagnostic biopsy, 116 (65%) were pRCC1, 19 (11%) were pRCC2, and 43 (24%) were pRCCX. 52 (29%) had at least one follow-up biopsy and the median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 21-76). The primary management strategy was surgery in 66 (37%), RFA in 52 (29%), and AS in 60 (34%) patients. Median age at biopsy was 64 and median size of the SRM was 2.4 cm (IQR 1.8 – 3). 71 patients underwent surgery either primarily or after AS or RFA. 4 patients managed with AS went on to have Nephrectomy and 6 AS patients had a subsequent RFA. Of the 40 patients with pRCC1 on biopsy, 32 (80%) had a pRCC1 on surgical pathology, of the 10 with pRCC2 on biopsy 30% had pRCC2 on surgical pathology, and of the 21 patients with pRCCX on biopsy 6 29% had pRCCX on surgical pathology. A total of 7 (10%) patients has other RCC on SP, Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: A biopsy of pRCC1 was highly predictive for pRCC1 on surgical pathology with no patients reclassifying to the more aggressive pRCC2, while 2 (5%) reclassified to other RCC. A biopsy with pRCC1 was much more correlated to a similar outcome on surgical pathology than pRCC2 and pRCCX. Only 10 (16%) patients shifted strategy from AS to treatment indicating it a reasonable strategy for the patients managed with AS in this cohort. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e1085-e1086 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Johan Björklund More articles by this author Douglas C Cheung More articles by this author Robert J Hamilton More articles by this author John Kachura More articles by this author Michael Jewett More articles by this author Alexandre R Zlotta More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.165 | 0.116 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".