MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surveillance and outcomes after curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEAC).

2019· article· en· W4234684676 on OpenAlexaff
Di Jiang, Chihiro Suzuki, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Charles Henry Lim, Lucy Xiaolu, Peiran Sun, Hao‐Wen Sim, Akina Natori, Bryan Chan, Daniel Yokom, Stephanie Moignard, Eric Xueyu Chen, Geoffrey Liu, Carol J. Swallow, Gail Darling, Rebecca Wong, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Elena Elimova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeGastroesophageal JunctionConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicineCancerAdenocarcinomaHazard ratioInterquartile rangeGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e15579 Background: Although commonly performed, evidence supporting routine surveillance testing (SvT) in patients (pts) with resected GEAC is lacking. We evaluated patterns of relapse, frequency of salvage therapy and outcomes among pts with resected GEAC who underwent surveillance. Methods: Between 2011 and 2016, 210 consecutive pts with GEAC followed at Princess Margaret Cancer Center after resection were reviewed. SvT was any investigation performed in the absence of pt-reported symptoms, abnormal physical exam findings, or bloodwork. Relapse patterns were classified as locoregional (LRR; surgical anastomosis/gastroesophageal lumen/regional nodes) or distant (DR; beyond locoregional). Time-to-relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from initial diagnosis, post recurrence survival (PRS) from initial relapse. Results: Median age was 64.1 years. Esophageal (14%), gastroesophageal junction (40%), and gastric adenocarcinomas (45%) were treated with surgery alone (29%), surgery plus perioperative chemotherapy (26%) or surgery plus chemoradiation (45%). SvT included imaging (71%), endoscopy (19%), tumor markers (6%), and clinical visits alone (9%). After median follow-up of 38.3 months (mo) (range 5.6-122.3), 3- and 5-year OS rates were 68% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62-75%) and 56% (95% CI 49-64%) respectively. Among 97 relapses (46%), 51 were detected by SvT, 45 by symptoms. Relapse patterns included LRR alone (4%), DR alone (86%) and both (10%). The majority of relapses (93%) occurred within 3 years. Pts with SvT-detected relapse had similar median TTR (16.2 vs 13.3 mo, p = 0.40) but longer PRS (16.5 vs 4.6 mo, p < 0.001) and OS (36.2 vs 23.7 mo, p = 0.004) than pts with symptomatic relapse. Salvage therapy in 4 pts (2%) resulted in post recurrence disease-free survival ≥2 years. Duration of palliative chemotherapy was similar between 28 pts with SvT-detected relapse and 18 pts with symptomatic relapses (3.9 vs 3.3 mo, p = 0.64). Conclusions: Following curative resection, 96% of relapses were distant. Routine SvT rarely enabled successful salvage therapy and did not extend duration of palliative chemotherapy. Longer OS in SvT-detected relapses was not due to earlier disease detection. These findings do not support routine SvT in pts with resected GEAC.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207