MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Late mortality and morbidity among adult survivors of childhood glioma treated over three decades: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

2022· article· en· W4281735399 on OpenAlexaff
Peter de Blank, Katharine R. Lange, Mengqi Xing, Sedigheh Mirzaei Salehabadi, Deokumar Srivastava, Tara M. Brinkman, Kirsten K. Ness, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Joseph Philip Neglia, Kevin R. Krull, Yutaka Yasui, Paul C. Nathan, Rebecca M. Howell, Lucie M. Turcotte, Wendy M. Leisenring, Gregory T. Armstrong, Mehmet Okçu, Daniel C. Bowers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceIncidence (geometry)Late effectPediatricsRadiation therapyGliomaCancerSurgeryInternal medicineCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10007 Background: Therapy for pediatric low-grade glioma has evolved to delay or eliminate the need for cranial radiation. The impact of this change in approach on long-term outcomes remains unknown. Methods: Cumulative incidence of late mortality (death ≥5 years from diagnosis), subsequent neoplasms (SNs), and chronic health conditions (CHCs, graded using CTCAE criteria) were evaluated in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study among 5-year survivors of glioma diagnosed between 1970 and 1999. Outcomes were evaluated by diagnosis decade (1970s, 1980s, 1990s) and by treatment exposure in the first five years from diagnosis [surgery only, chemotherapy (with or without surgery), and cranial radiation (with or without surgery or chemotherapy)]. Relative Risk (RRs) with 95% CIs estimated long-term outcomes using multivariable piecewise exponential models. Results: Among 2,684 eligible survivors (median age at diagnosis, 7 years [range, 0 to 20 years]; median time from diagnosis, 24 years [range, 5 to 48 years]), the proportion exposed to cranial radiation decreased from 51% (1970s) to 45% (1980s) and 25% (1990s) while the rate of recurrence within > 5 years but ≤15 years of diagnosis decreased from 9.8% (1970s) to 8.8% (1980s) and 5.0% (1990s). The 15-year cumulative incidence rate of all-cause late mortality was 10.3% (1970s), 6.5% (1980s), and 6.0% (1990s) (p < 0.001, comparison of cumulative incidence curves). The 15-year cumulative incidence rates of severe, disabling or life-threatening (grade 3-5) CHCs also decreased between 1970 and 1999: 19.7% (1970s), 17.8% (1980s), and 14.2% (1990s) (p < 0.0001). Lower rates of SN were not observed. In a multivariable analysis adjusted for age at diagnosis, attained age, race, sex and diagnosis decade, later diagnosis (1990s vs. 1970s) was associated with lower risk of late mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99), grade 3-5 CHCs (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82) and SN (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94). In addition, when treatment exposure was added to the multivariable model, the effect of diagnosis decade was attenuated and no longer significant. Exposure to radiation or chemotherapy both increased risk compared to surgery alone: all-cause mortality (radiation RR 4.95, 95% CI 3.79-6.47; chemotherapy RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.85-4.48), grade 3-5 CHCs (radiation RR 4.02, 95% CI 3.28-4.94; chemotherapy RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.13-2.45), SNs (radiation RR 4.02, 95% CI 3.06-6.13, chemotherapy RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.03-4.23)). The effect of delayed radiation (> 1year to ≤5 years from diagnosis) on all-cause late mortality, grade 3-5 CHCs, or SNs was not different compared to radiation within one year of diagnosis. Conclusions: Late mortality and CHCs decreased in childhood glioma survivors diagnosed from 1970-1999 largely due to therapy changes, particularly avoidance of cranial radiation, without increased late recurrence.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→