MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304810067 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1025475

18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: A prospective pilot study

2022· article· en· W4304810067 on OpenAlexaff
Ur Metser, Roshini Kulanthaivelu, Tanya Chawla, Sarah J. Johnson, Lisa Avery, Douglas Hussey, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Marcus Q. Bernardini, Liat Hogen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerProspective cohort studyHistopathologyPET-CTStage (stratigraphy)CancerRadiologyNuclear medicinePathologyPositron emission tomographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Glutamate carboxypeptidase-II (GCP-II), a zinc metalloenzyme that resides in cell membrane, has been reported as overexpressed in the neovasculature of ovarian cancers. The study objective was to determine whether GCP-II targeted imaging with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT can detect disease sites in women with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Materials and methods Twenty treatment-naïve women with advanced HGSOC were recruited (median age 60 years). Prior to commencing therapy (primary cytoreductive surgery [n=9] or neoadjuvant chemotherapy [n=11]), subjects underwent routine staging with contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT (=CT), followed by 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (=PET). CT and PET were reported independently using a standardized reporting template assessing 25 sites. The performance of PET was compared to CT in all subjects and to surgery and surgical histopathology in 9 patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery. Results Of the 25 sites assessed in 20 patients, CT detected disease in 292/500 (58.4%) locations and PET detected disease in 171/500 (34.2%). Compared to CT the sensitivity (95% CI) of PET to detect disease in the upper abdomen, the gastrointestinal tract or the peritoneum was 0.29 (0.20,0.40), 0.21 (0.11,0.33) and 0.74 (0.64,0.82), respectively. In the surgical cohort, 220 sites in 9 patients were evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and PET were 0.85 versus 0.54 (p<0.001) and 0.73 versus 0.93 (p<0.001), respectively. Conclusion Although 18F-DCFPyL has higher specificity than CT in detecting advanced HGSOC tumor sites, it detects less disease sites than CT, especially in the upper abdomen and along the gastrointestinal tract, likely limiting its clinical utility. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03811899.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207