MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291392345 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29080450

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Pregnant Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Monocentric Retrospective Study

2022· article· en· W4291392345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Federica Bernardini, Gabriella Ferrandina, Caterina Ricci, Anna Fagotti, Francesco Fanfani, Anna Franca Cavaliere, Benedetta Gui, Giovanni Scambia, Rosa De Vincenzo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyMalignancyPopulationGestational diabetesCancerStage (stratigraphy)Cervical cancerObstetricsPediatricsSurgeryGestationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To date, little and discordant data still exists on the management of cervical cancer (CC) during pregnancy. In this paper, we report our experience of the treatment of these patients analyzing the oncologic, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2021, 13 patients were diagnosed with CC during pregnancy. All patients underwent platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and 11/13 patients underwent a cesarean radical hysterectomy (CRH). RESULTS: All 13 patients were diagnosed with squamous-cell carcinoma, FIGO-2018 stage between IB2-IIIC1. The majority of patients had a partial (61.5%) or complete (15.4%) response to NACT. Most patients had a regular course of pregnancy and the obstetric complications observed were gestational diabetes mellitus in 23.1% and IUGR in 15.4% of cases. CRH was performed in the absence of major complications. Only 2 patients (15.4%) had disease recurrence and only 1 patient (7.7%) died of disease. All children are currently healthy. At birth, we observed mainly prematurity-related complications (38.5% respiratory distress syndrome and 7.7% neonatal jaundice) and only a case of congenital malformation (hypospadias). In our pediatric population, we reported a case of malignancy (acute myeloid leukemia). CONCLUSION: NACT seems to be safe and efficacious in controlling tumor burden during pregnancy. CRH following NACT appears to be feasible, avoiding repeated surgery and treatment delays. This approach is also reasonably safe from a maternal, obstetric, and neonatal point of view.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207