MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Associations between body composition measurements (BCM) and phase 1 (P1) oncology clinical trial outcomes.

2022· article· en· W4281775937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter D. Whooley, Elizabeth A. Handorf, Christopher C. Coss, Trang T. Vu, Bryan Remaily, Emma J. Montgomery, Pritish Iyer, Matthew Blau, Yana Chertock, Rishi Jain, Michael J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdipose tissueProportional hazards modelInternal medicineSkeletal muscleSMA*CachexiaBody mass indexSarcopeniaLogistic regressionLumbarCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18648 Background: Cancer-related malnutrition and cachexia can lead to body composition changes. BCM can be assessed at the third lumbar (L3) vertebra by CT, which is available as part of pre-trial evaluation. We previously found that malnutrition and low psoas muscle area (PMA) are associated with adverse P1 outcomes including higher rates of ≥ Grade 3 toxicity (G3T). Here we evaluate the relationships between comprehensive cross-sectional muscle and adipose tissue BCM at L3 on P1 outcomes. Methods: Baseline CT scans for 82 patients (pts) were reviewed and images at the level of L3 were identified by 3 independent reviewers. A CT L3 image selected by at least 2 reviewers underwent analysis by Slice-O-Matic software (Tomovision, Canada) to generate BCM including: skeletal muscle area (SMA), skeletal muscle radiodensity (SMD), and adipose tissue area [intermuscular (IMAT), visceral (VAT), subcutaneous (SAT), and total adipose (TAT)] in cm2. SMA was normalized by height (m2), yielding cross-sectional skeletal muscle index (SMI). We stratified pts by having a SMI, SMD, IMAT, VAT, SAT, and TAT above or below the median value. We evaluated for associations between BCM and the following outcomes: rates of ≥ G3T, frequency of dose reductions/interruptions, hospitalizations, tumor response, disease control, duration on study (DOS), and overall survival (OS). Chi-square analysis was used to determine statistical significance between groups. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare DOS and OS. A multivariable analysis (MVA) was conducted via logistic regression to evaluate the association between SMI, VAT, PMA and ≥ G3T controlling for age and gender. Results: 82 P1 pts were included (38 M, 45 F), with a median age of 60 (range 28-85). The most common disease site was gastrointestinal (33%). Mean SMI was 44.78 cm2/m2 (range 25.70-79.89). Higher SMI was associated with a reduced risk of ≥ G3T (36.6% vs 58.5%; p = 0.047) and a trend towards improved OS (p = 0.07). There was no association between SMD, IMAT, SAT, or TAT and toxicity, however, higher VAT was associated with reduced risk of ≥ G3T (31.7% vs 63.4%, p = 0.004), and improved response to therapy (p = 0.001). A MVA controlling for age and gender showed that reduced SMI (AUC 0.7072), increased VAT (AUC 0.7597), and reduced PMA (AUC 0.757) were similar in their ability to predict ≥ G3T. Conclusions: P1 trials are designed to determine the safety and tolerability of investigational agents. In this population of P1 pts, BCM including higher baseline CT L3 SMI and VAT were associated with a reduced risk of ≥ G3T. BCM were also tied to efficacy as high VAT was associated with improved tumor response while a trend towards improved OS was noted for pts with higher baseline SMI. Future research should examine the value of integrating CT-based BCM into dose-selection algorithms when evaluating safety in P1 trials to minimize treatment-related toxicity and optimize therapeutic benefit.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.636
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.014 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→