MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of pregnancy in women with desmoid fibromatosis: An international retrospective observational study.

2023· article· en· W4379280715 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Fiore, Sylvie Bonvalot, Giulia Personeni, Chandrajit P. Raut, Kelly Mercier, Rebecca A. Gladdy, Silva Ljevar, Dimitrios Tzanis, Enrica Rossi, Megan L. Sulciner, Harini Suraweera, Chiara Colombo, Mikhael Rabih, Marianna Coppola, Catherine Sarre-Lazcano, Sara Iadecola, Costanza Figura, D. Salvatore, Alessandro Gronchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObservational studyLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyObstetricsFibromatosisMultivariate analysisGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11513 Background: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) often occurs during pregnancy/peripartum. Guidance for planning new pregnancies during active surveillance or following DF resection has been limited. Thus, we sought to evaluate outcomes and decision making in the peripartum. Methods: Women of child-bearing age with DF diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were interviewed about procreation decisions, in a multicenter retrospective observational study (NCT05284305). Pregnancies simultaneous or after diagnosis were analyzed. Primary outcome was DF progression/recurrence within 1 yr postpartum. Secondary outcomes were spontaneous regression, switch to active treatment, and obstetric risks. To estimate probability of progression, a random intercept logistic model was fit to account for correlation of progression in multiple pregnancies in the same patient. Results: Of 483 pts interviewed, 120 (24.8%) postponed, 32 (6.6%) interrupted, and/or 232 (48%) avoided pregnancy (in 93.3%, 50%, and 72.9% of cases because of DF), respectively. 147 pregnancies in 131 pts were concurrent with or after diagnosis: 26 (17.7%, Group A) concurrent with diagnosis, 48 (32.7%, B) after DF resection, and 73 (49.7%, C) with DF on surveillance. Estimated probability of progression was 12.0% (CI 2.0 – 48.4) during pregnancy and 15.8% (5.6 – 37.5) postpartum; for pregnancies after diagnosis (Groups B and C), these rates were 5.1% (0.4 – 40.0) and 9.0% (1.8 – 35.0). On multivariate analysis, age at pregnancy and size of primary DF were significant risk factors for progression (Table). Estimated probability of spontaneous regression was 3.6% (CI 0.2-40.7) during pregnancy and 7.1% (CI 0.3 – 67.2) postpartum. 7/38 (18.4%) spontaneously regressed after pregnancy-related PD, 4/23 (17.4%) in Groups B and C. Treatment for progression was needed in 9/79 (11.4%) postpartum, in 4/63 (6.3%) in Groups B and C. Obstetric complications were comparable to population data in developed countries. Conclusions: After DF diagnosis, pregnancy is safe with a risk of progression of 5% during pregnancy and 9% postpartum. Treatment is needed in only 6%. Spontaneous regression is less common but occurs even after initial progression. Patients decision making about procreation appeared to be influenced by their DF diagnosis. This study supports counseling that fertility options should be fully explored with expert guidance as intervention rates are low. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207