MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282914913 · doi:10.3390/cancers14122942

Postoperative Recurrences in Patients Operated for Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas: New Data Supporting Lifelong Surveillance

2022· article· en· W4282914913 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéfanie Parisien‐La Salle, Jessica Chbat, André Lacroix, Paul Perrotte, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Issam Saliba, Xuan Kim Le, Harold J. Olney, Isabelle Bourdeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicineParagangliomaGeneral surgerySurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At least 10% of pheochromocytomas (PHEOs) and paragangliomas (PGLs) (PPGLs) may recur after the initial surgery. Guidelines recommend annual screening for recurrence in non-metastatic tumors for at least 10 years after the initial surgical resection and lifelong screening in high-risk patients. However, recent data suggest that a shorter follow-up might be appropriate. We performed a retrospective analysis on patients with PPGLs who had local and/or metastatic recurrences between 1995 and 2020 in our center. Data were available for 39 cases of recurrence (69.2% female) including 20 PHEOs (51.3%) and 19 PGLs (48.7%) (13 head and neck (HNPGL) and 6 thoracoabdominal (TAPGL)). The overall average delay of recurrence was 116.6 months (14-584 months) or 9.7 years and the median was 71 months or 5.9 years. One-third of the cohort had a recurrence more than 10 years after the initial surgery (10-48.7 years). The average tumor size at initial diagnosis was 8.2 cm for PHEOs, 2.7 cm for HNPGLs, and 9.6 cm for TAPGLs. Interestingly, 17.6% of PHEOs were under 5 cm at the initial diagnosis. Metastatic recurrence was identified in 75% of PHEOs, 15.4% of HNPGLs, and 66.7% of TAPGLs. Finally, 12/23 (52.2%) patients with recurrence who underwent genetic testing carried a germline mutation. Overall, the safest option remains a lifelong follow-up.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207