MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196547844 · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.020

Risk factors for nodal failure after radiochemotherapy and image guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: An EMBRACE analysis

2021· article· en· W3196547844 on OpenAlexaff
Max Peters, Astrid A.C. de Leeuw, C. Nomden, Kari Tanderup, Kathrin Kirchheiner, Jacob Christian Lindegaard, Christian Kirisits, Christine Haie-Méder, Alina Sturdza, Lars Fokdal, Umesh Mahantshetty, Peter Hoskin, Barbara Šegedin, Kjersti Bruheim, Bhavana Rai, Fleur Huang, Rachel Cooper, Elzbieta van der Steen-Banasik, Erik Van Limbergen, Bradley R. Pieters, Li Tee Tan, Peter S.N. van Rossum, N. Nesvacil, Remi A. Nout, Maximilian Schmid, Richard Pötter, Ina M. Jürgenliemk‐Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyCervical cancerMedicineNODALRadiologyRadiation therapyOncologyMedical physicsCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To assess risk factors for nodal failure (NF) after definitive (chemo)radiotherapy and image-guided brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) for patients treated in the EMBRACE I study. Materials and methods Data for pelvic NF and para-aortic (PAO) NF (NF PAO ) were analysed. After multiple imputation, univariable and multivariable Cox-regression was performed for clinical and treatment-related variables. For patients with affected pelvic nodes but no PAO nodes at diagnosis, additional analyses were performed for two subgroups: 1. ‘small pelvis' nodes in internal and external iliac, obturator, parametrial, presacral and/or common iliac (CI) region and 2. any CI nodes (subgroup of 1). Results 1338 patients with 152 NF and 104 NF PAO events were analysed with a median follow-up of 34.2 months (IQR 16.4–52.7). For the entire group, larger tumour width, nodal risk groups (in particular any CI nodes without PAO nodes), local failure, and lower Hb-nadir increased the risk of NF. Elective PAO-irradiation was independently associated with a decreased risk of NF PAO (HR 0.53, 95%-CI 0.28–1.00, p = 0.05). For subgroup 1, having ‘any CI nodes without PAO nodes' and local failure significantly increased NF risk. Additionally, elective PAO-irradiation was associated with less risk of NF PAO (HR 0.38, 95%-CI 0.17–0.86, p = 0.02). For subgroup 2 only local failure was associated with higher risk of NF. Conclusion In this patient cohort, nodal disease and tumour width at diagnosis, as well as local failure, are risk factors for NF after definitive treatment. Having either ‘any PAO nodes' (with or without pelvic nodes) or ‘any CI nodes' (without PAO nodes) are stronger risk factors than involvement of nodes in the small pelvis alone. Elective PAO-irradiation was associated with significantly less NF PAO , particularly in patients with nodal disease in the ‘small pelvis' and/or CI region at time of diagnosis.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRadiotherapy and OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207