Prognostic impact of lymph node involvement and loss of heterozygosity of 1p or 16q in stage III favorable histology Wilms tumor: A report from Children’s Oncology Group Studies AREN03B2 and AREN0532
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prognostic impact of positive lymph nodes (LN+) and/or singular loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of 1p or 16q were assessed in children with stage III favorable histology Wilms tumor (FHWT) enrolled on AREN0532 or AREN03B2 alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 635 stage III FHWT vincristine/dactinomycin/doxorubicin (DD4A)-treated patients met inclusion criteria. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival are reported overall and by LN sampling, LN status, LOH 1p, LOH 16q, and a combination of LN status and singular LOH. Patients with unknown or positive combined LOH of 1p and 16q status and AREN03B2-only patients with unknown outcomes or treatment other than DD4A were excluded. RESULTS: EFS did not differ by study, supporting pooling. Lack of LN sampling (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; p = .0037), LN positivity (HR, 2.78; p = .0002), LOH 1p (HR, 2.18; p = .0067), and LOH 16q (HR, 1.72; p = .042) were associated with worse EFS. Compared with patients with both LN- and LOH-, those with negative nodes but positive LOH 1p or 16q and those with LN+ but LOH- for 1p or 16q had significantly worse EFS (HR, 3.05 and 3.57, respectively). Patients positive for both LN and LOH had the worst EFS (HR, 6.33; overall group factor, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Findings confirm LN+ status as an adverse prognostic factor amplified by presence of singular LOH 1p or 16q, supporting study of intensified therapy for patients with LN+ in combination with singular LOH in a prospective clinical trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".