Validation of the geriatric vulnerability score in older patients with ovarian cancer: an analysis from the GCIG-ENGOT-GINECO EWOC-1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients with ovarian cancer represent a heterogeneous population. The French National Group of Investigators for the Study of Ovarian and Breast Cancer developed the geriatric vulnerability score (GVS) to identify geriatric parameters predictive of poor outcomes. A prospective validation of the GVS was needed. METHODS: The EWOC-1 study (NCT02001272) was an international, open-label, phase 2, three-arm trial designed according to a two-step process. Patients aged 70 years or older with newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer were identified and the GVS determined. Those with a GVS of 3 or greater were randomly assigned to the EWOC-1 trial, stratified by country and surgical outcome, to receive three different carboplatin with or without paclitaxel regimens; those not included in the EWOC-1 trial were followed up in the EWOC-1 registry. External validation of the GVS was a secondary endpoint of the trial. Three validation cohorts were identified: the total population (validation cohort 1 [V1], n=447), the registry-only population (validation cohort 2 [V2], n=327), and the carboplatin-paclitaxel-treated population (validation cohort 3 [V3], n=320). FINDINGS: From Dec 11, 2013, to Nov 16, 2018, 447 patients were included in 48 academic centres in six countries; 120 in the EWOC-1 trial and 327 in the EWOC-1 registry. Median follow-up was 19·7 (95% CI 8·5-29·7) months for the total cohort; missing values were low (<2%). According to the maximum likelihood analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) of death in V1 was 1·8 (95% CI 1·1-3·1, p=0·029) for those with a GVS of 1; 2·4 (1·4-4·0, p=0·0009) with a GVS of 2; 4·1 (2·5-7·0, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 3; 5·5 (3·3-9·3, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 4; and 9·1 (4·7-17·5, p<0·0001) for a GVS of 5 compared with a score of 0. Whatever the validation cohort, GVS of 3 or more significantly segregated two groups with different overall survival: V1 (median 13·2 [95% CI: 10·8-18·7] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months; HR 2·8 [95% CI 2·2-3·7]; p<0·0001); V2 (11·9 [95% CI 8·8-18·1] vs 40·8 [32·0-45·6] months, HR 3·5 [2·5-4·9]; p<0·0001); and V3 (18·1 [95% CI 15·8-31·8] vs 43·0 [40·6-49·7] months, HR 2·6 [1·9 to 3·7]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The GVS has high prognostic performance for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, independently of geographic and historic effect (V1), as well as treatment patterns (V3), validated in an international population. Even though the GVS is time consuming it will allow the stratification of populations for clinical research and might permit the orientation of the geriatric intervention to specific domains. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".