MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216935060 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab196.524

NIMG-24. RANO CRITERIA DETECTS EARLY PROGRESSION SOONER THAN MODIFIED RANO CRITERIA IN PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA

2021· article· en· W3216935060 on OpenAlexaff
Gilbert Youssef, Mary Jane Lim-Fat, Camden Bay, Omar Arnaout, Wenya Linda Bi, Daniel Cagney, Matthew N. DeSalvo, L. Nicolas Gonzalez Castro, Jeffrey P. Guenette, Eudocia Q. Lee, J Ricardo McFaline-Figueroa, Christopher A. Potter, David P. Reardon, Timothy F. Cloughesy, Benjamin M. Ellingson, Rifaquat Rahman, Raymond Y. Huang, Patrick Y. Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlioblastomaMedicineProgression-free survivalTumor progressionRetrospective cohort studyRadiation therapyOncologySurgeryInternal medicineOverall survivalRadiologyMedical physicsCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Accurate response criteria are crucial for determining treatment efficacy. The response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) criteria was developed to standardize response assessment in neuro-oncology. Modified RANO (m-RANO) criteria were recently proposed to address some limitations of the initial criteria including the use of a post-radiation baseline and an additional scan to confirm progression. We sought to identify differences in the association of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using RANO and m-RANO criteria. METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 2013 until December 2019. Patients with available clinical and imaging data obtained before initiation of treatment, after radiation completion and at intervals of 1 to 3 months were included. MRIs were evaluated by two independent readers, and PD dates determined using RANO and m-RANO criteria. RESULTS 552 patients were included. 97.1% of the tumors were IDH wild-type. MGMT promoter was unmethylated in 51.4%, methylated in 35.1% and undetermined in 8.5%. Median OS among patients was 18.1 months. 72 patients (13%) did not have PD at the end of the study. 83 patients had treatment change while being clinically stable and without a confirmation scan and were excluded from the final analysis. PFS was 8.2 months with RANO and 8.4 months with mRANO. Difference in PD dates between RANO and m-RANO was detected in 76 patients (14%), where PFS was 3.5 months with RANO and 5.1 months with m-RANO. These patients had a worse median OS than those with identical RANO and m-RANO PD dates (15.2 vs. 22.4 months, p< 0.0001). CONCLUSION RANO and m-RANO criteria resulted in identical PFS for most patients. 14% of patients had discordant PD dates and a worse prognosis. These patients progressed early, and their PD was identified sooner with RANO criteria.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207