MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224305024 · doi:10.1530/eje-21-1186

Safety of growth hormone replacement in survivors of cancer and intracranial and pituitary tumours: a consensus statement

2022· review· en· W4224305024 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Cristina da Silva Boguszewski, César Luiz Boguszewski, Wassim Chemaitilly, Laurie E. Cohen, Judith Gebauer, Claire Higham, Andrew R. Hoffman, Michel Polak, Kevin C.J. Yuen, Nathalie Alos, Zoltan Antal, Martin Bidlingmaier, Beverley M K Biller, George Brabant, Catherine S Choong, Stefano Cianfarani, Peter Clayton, R. Coutant, Adriane Cardoso-Demartini, Alberto Fernández, Adda Grimberg, Kolbeinn Guðmundsson, Jaime Guevara‐Aguirre, Ken K. Y. Ho, Reiko Horikawa, Andrea M. Isidori, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Peter Kamenický, Niki Karavitaki, John J. Kopchick, Maya Lodish, Xiaoping Luo, Ann McCormack, Lillian R. Meacham, Шломо Мелмед, Sogol Mostoufi‐ Moab, Hermann L. Müller, Sebastian J C M M Neggers, Manoel H Aguiar Oliveira, Keiichi Ozono, P. Pennisi, Vera Popović, Sally Radovick, Lars Sävendahl, Philippe Touraine, Hanneke M. van Santen, Gudmundur Johannsson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Endocrinology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersIpsenAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Cancer InstituteDeutsche KinderkrebsstiftungAmryt PharmaEli Lilly and CompanyEuropean Society of EndocrinologyMassachusetts General HospitalNovo NordiskSanofiPfizer
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCancerCraniopharyngiomaHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)OncologyEndocrinologyGynecologyTestosterone (patch)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth hormone (GH) has been used for over 35 years, and its safety and efficacy has been studied extensively. Experimental studies showing the permissive role of GH/insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) in carcinogenesis have raised concerns regarding the safety of GH replacement in children and adults who have received treatment for cancer and those with intracranial and pituitary tumours. A consensus statement was produced to guide decision-making on GH replacement in children and adult survivors of cancer, in those treated for intracranial and pituitary tumours and in patients with increased cancer risk. With the support of the European Society of Endocrinology, the Growth Hormone Research Society convened a Workshop, where 55 international key opinion leaders representing 10 professional societies were invited to participate. This consensus statement utilized: (1) a critical review paper produced before the Workshop, (2) five plenary talks, (3) evidence-based comments from four breakout groups, and (4) discussions during report-back sessions. Current evidence reviewed from the proceedings from the Workshop does not support an association between GH replacement and primary tumour or cancer recurrence. The effect of GH replacement on secondary neoplasia risk is minor compared to host- and tumour treatment-related factors. There is no evidence for an association between GH replacement and increased mortality from cancer amongst GH-deficient childhood cancer survivors. Patients with pituitary tumour or craniopharyngioma remnants receiving GH replacement do not need to be treated or monitored differently than those not receiving GH. GH replacement might be considered in GH-deficient adult cancer survivors in remission after careful individual risk/benefit analysis. In children with cancer predisposition syndromes, GH treatment is generally contraindicated but may be considered cautiously in select patients.

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0310.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EndocrinologySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207