MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using CT-based body composition metrics and frailty index in predicting survival among older adults with cancer.

2022· article· en· W4286295529 on OpenAlexaff
Smith Giri, Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano, Christian Harmon, Kelly Kenzik, Mustafa Al‐Obaidi, Ijeamaka Anyene, Mirza Faisal Beg, Vincent Chow, Karteek Popuri, Leon Lenchik, Bette J. Caan, Grant R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProportional hazards modelCancerInternal medicineSarcopeniaBody mass indexGeriatric oncologySurvival analysisGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12057 Background: Older adults with cancer are at an increased risk of treatment related toxicities and excess mortality during cancer treatment. While altered body composition and frailty are associated with worse survival among older adults with cancer, no prior study has examined their combined influence on survival prediction. Methods: Prospective study of older adults (≥60 years) undergoing geriatric assessment (GA) at initial visit with a medical oncologist at UAB from 9/2017-07/2021 with available abdominal computed tomography (CT) within 60 days of GA. Using multi-slice CT images from T12 to L5 level, volumetric skeletal muscle (SMV), visceral (VATV) and subcutaneous (SATV) adipose tissues, and skeletal muscle density (SMD), were derived. Sex-specific z-scores for each measure were determined. A 44-item frailty index was obtained, using the deficit accumulation model. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from GA to death or last follow-up (11/8/2021). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival rates were compared using log-rank statistics. Multivariable cox regression models were used to predict OS in a random sub-sample (1:1 split of training:validation set), sequentially adding frailty and each body composition measure and assessing improvement with likelihood ratio tests and Harrel’s C statistic. Results: 815 patients were included (median age 68 years, 61% men, and 75% non-Hispanic Whites. 73% had gastrointestinal malignancies (stage III, 25%, stage, IV 48%). 32% were frail, 31% pre-frail. There was a weak negative correlation between height-adjusted SMV and frailty (r = -0.16), particularly among men (r -0.24). Over a median follow-up of 25.7 months (range 0.3-49.6 months), 268 patients (33%) died. The 2-year survival rate was 75.9%, 68.5% and 52.2% among robust, pre-frail and frail (log-rank p <.001), respectively. In multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, race, cancer type and cancer stage, being frail (vs robust) (Hazards Ratio, HR = 2.32; 95%CI: 1.69-3.2; p <.001) and higher skeletal muscle volume (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.72-0.99; p= 0.04, per SD increment) were independently associated with OS. Adding body composition and frailty to clinical variables led to significant improvement in prediction (Harrel’s C increased from 0.69 to 0.74). In the validation set, discrimination was similar (Harrel’s C = 0.72) and plots suggested good model calibration. Conclusions: CT-based body composition metrics and frailty are independent predictors of OS among older adults with cancer and improve survival prediction compared to routine clinical risk factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→