Perceptions of Controversies and Unresolved Issues in the 2014 FIGO Staging System for Endometrial Cancer: Survey Results From Members of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists and International Gynecologic Cancer Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-standing controversial and unresolved issues in the current "International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics" staging system for endometrial cancer are well-recognized by pathologists and clinicians alike and exist primarily as a result of limitations to the existing literature. To guide the design of future outcome-based studies specifically aimed at resolving such gaps, the International Society of Gynecologic Pathologists developed a survey of the current perceptions of pathologists (n = 172) and clinicians (n= 135) from the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists and from the International Gynecologic Cancer Society on areas for potential refinement of the current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system. The highest priority issues for pathologists and clinicians alike were the need to determine whether stage IIIA patients (ovarian/fallopian tube involvement) can be reliably separated into favorable versus unfavorable outcome groups to avoid over-treatment of the former group and to determine whether stage IIIC patients (lymph node metastases) can be separated into favorable versus unfavorable outcome groups based on the size of lymph node metastases. The majority of pathologists and clinicians viewed lymphovascular space invasion as an independent prognostic variable and favored incorporating lymphovascular space invasion into staging, though the level of support did not meet the threshold of 75% in support that we used to define a formal consensus. While pathologists did agree on the prognostic value of reporting the extent of lymphovascular space invasion, there was no consensus on the diagnostic criteria to distinguish focal versus substantial involvement. The majority of pathologists and clinicians viewed that a universally accepted protocol for sentinel lymph node ultra-staging is lacking. Both survey groups conveyed a slight preference for incorporating tumor histotype and molecular classification into staging but the support was short of the 75% threshold for formal consensus. Collectively, this survey permits the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists to develop a pathologist and clinician-driven long-term strategy for prioritizing and designing outcome-based studies specifically targeted to resolving controversial and unresolved issues in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of endometrial cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".