Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agents: Results from a large multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5041 Background: Prognostic factors (PF) for OS have yet to be fully defined for patients with metastatic RCC in the era of VEGF-targeted therapy. This study identifies PFs in this population and updated survival and validation results are presented. Methods: Baseline characteristics and outcomes on anti-VEGF-naïve metastatic RCC patients were collected from three US and four Canadian centers. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, 3 risk categories for predicting survival were identified on the basis of 6 pretreatment clinical features. Results: Six-hundred forty-five patients were included. The median (m) OS was 22 months (95% CI: 20.0–24.8) with a median follow-up of 25 months. Patients were treated with sunitinib (n = 396), sorafenib (n = 200) or bevacizumab (n = 49); 33% had prior immunotherapy. Four of the five PFs previously identified by MSKCC were independent predictors of short survival, including hemoglobin below the lower limit of normal (LLN) (p < 0.0001), corrected calcium above the upper limit of normal (ULN) (p = 0.0006), Karnofsky performance status <80% (p < 0.0001) and time from initial diagnosis to initiation of therapy ULN (pULN (p = 0.012) were independent adverse PFs. Patients were assigned one point for each poor PF and were segregated into three risk categories: favorable-risk (0 PFs, n = 133) median OS (mOS) 37.0 months; intermediate-risk (1 - 2 PFs, n = 292) mOS 28.5 months; and poor-risk (3–6 PFs, n = 139) mOS 9.4 months (log rank p < 0.0001). This model produced a c-index of 0.74 and the bootstrap procedure confirmed good internal validity. The discriminatory ability of the model and its parameter estimates were not affected after adjusting for prior use of immunotherapy or the type of anti-VEGF drug used. Conclusions: These data validate components of the MSKCC model with the addition of platelet and neutrophil counts. This model derived from a large population can be incorporated into patient care and clinical trials of VEGF-targeted agents. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".