MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Histologic diversity in chromophobe renal cell carcinoma does not impact survival outcome: A comparative international multi-institutional study

2022· article· en· W4280488872 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Feu Llaurado, Monika Ulamec, Faruk Skenderi, Delia Pérez‐Montiel, Isabel Alvarado‐Cabrero, Stela Bulimbašić, Māris Sperga, Maria Tretiakova, Adeboye O. Osunkoya, Joanna Rogala, Éva Compérat, Viliam Gál, Ana Dunatov, Kristýna Pivovarčíková, Květoslava Michalová, Adriena Bartoš Veselá, Maryna Slisarenko, Andrea Peterikova Strakova, Tomáš Pitra, Milan Hora, Michal Michal, Reza Alaghehbandan, Ondřej Hes

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Diagnostic Pathology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilicPathologyClear cellRenal cell carcinomaBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the clinical behavior and trajectory of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) by histologic features has so far proven to be challenging. It is known that ChRCC represents a heterogeneous group of neoplasms demonstrating variable, yet distinctive morphologic and genetic profiles. In this international multi-institutional study, we aimed to assess the impact of histologic diversity in ChRCC (classic/eosinophilic versus rare subtypes) on survival outcome. This is an international multi-institutional matched case-control study including 14 institutions, examining the impact of histologic subtypes of ChRCC on survival outcome. The study group (cases) included 89 rare subtypes of ChRCC. The control group consisted of 70 cases of ChRCC including classic and eosinophilic features, age- and tumor size-matched. Most of the rare subtypes were adenomatoid cystic/pigmented ChRCC (66/89, 74.2%), followed by multicystic ChRCC (10/89, 11.2%), and papillary ChRCC (9/89, 10.1%). In the control group, there were 62 (88.6%) classic and 8 (11.4%) eosinophilic ChRCC. There were no statistically significant differences between the study and control groups for age at diagnosis, gender distribution, tumor size, presence of tumor necrosis, presence of sarcomatoid differentiation, and adverse outcomes. No statistically significant differences were found in clinical outcome between the rare subtypes and classic/eosinophilic groups by tumor size, necrosis, and sarcomatoid differentiation. Further, no statistically significant differences were found in clinical outcome between the two groups, stratified by tumor size, necrosis, and sarcomatoid differentiation. Our findings corroborated previous studies that both sarcomatoid differentiation and tumor necrosis were significantly associated with poor clinical outcome in classic/eosinophilic ChRCC, and this was proven to be true for ChRCC with rare histologic subtypes as well. This study suggests that rare morphologic patterns in ChRCC without other aggressive features play no role in determining the clinical behavior of the tumor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Diagnostic PathologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207