MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195589874 · doi:10.1200/jco.21.00006

Radiotherapy Versus Inguinofemoral Lymphadenectomy as Treatment for Vulvar Cancer Patients With Micrometastases in the Sentinel Node: Results of GROINSS-V II

2021· article· en· W3195589874 on OpenAlexaff
Maaike H.M. Oonk, Brian M. Slomovitz, Peter Baldwin, Helena C. van Doorn, Jacobus van der Velden, Joanne A. de Hullu, Katja N. Gaarenstroom, B.F.M. Slangen, Ignace Vergote, Mats Brännström, E.B.L. van Dorst, Willemien J. van Driel, Ralph H.M. Hermans, David Nunns, Martin Widschwendter, David Nugent, Cathrine Holland, Aarti Sharma, Paul DiSilvestro, Robert S. Mannel, Dorry Boll, David Cibula, Al Covens, Diane Provencher, Ingo B. Runnebaum, David Luesley, Timothy J. Duncan, Ming Y. Tjiong, Derek Cruickshank, Preben Kjølhede, Charles F. Levenback, J Bouda, Katharina Kieser, Connie Palle, Nicola M. Spirtos, David M. O’Malley, Mario M. Leitão, Melissa A. Geller, K. K. Dhar, Viren Asher, Karl Tamussino, Daniel H. Tobias, Christer Borgfeldt, Jayanthi Lea, Jo Bailey, Margareta Lood, Brynhildur Eyjólfsdóttir, Stephen Attard-Montalto, Krishnansu S. Tewari, Ranjit Manchanda, Pernille Tine Jensen, P Persson, Linda Van Le, Hein Putter, Geertruida H. de Bock, Bradley J. Monk, Carien L. Creutzberg, Ate G.J. van der Zee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineVulvar cancerSentinel nodeRadiation therapyLymphadenectomyVulvar neoplasmSentinel lymph nodeOncologySurgeryCancerInternal medicineVulvaBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN). METHODS GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL ( P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL. CONCLUSION Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations122
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207