Site-specific therapy in cancers of unknown primary site: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is a term applied to characterize pathologically confirmed metastatic cancer with unknown primary tumor origin. It remains uncertain whether patients with CUP benefit from site-specific therapy guided by molecular profiling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and of conference abstracts from January 1976 to January 2021 was performed to identify studies investigating the efficacy of site-specific therapy on patients with CUP. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Eligible studies were weighted and pooled for meta-analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed to compare the efficacy of site-specific therapy with empiric therapy in patients with CUP. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 1114 patients were identified, of which 454 patients received site-specific therapy, and 660 patients received empiric therapy. Our meta-analysis revealed that site-specific therapy was not significantly associated with improved PFS [HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.17, P = 0.534] and OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55-1.03, P = 0.069), compared with empiric therapy. However, during subgroup analysis significantly improved OS was associated with site-specific therapy in the high-accuracy predictive assay subgroup (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.81, P = 0.008) compared with the low accuracy predictive assay subgroup (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.15, P = 0.509). Furthermore, compared with patients with less responsive tumor types, more survival benefit from site-specific therapy was found in patients with more responsive tumors (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97, P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that site-specific therapy is not significantly associated with improved survival outcomes; however, it might benefit patients with CUP with responsive tumor types.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it