Treatment of children with favorable histology Wilms tumor with extrapulmonary metastases: A report from the COG studies AREN0533 and AREN03B2 and NWTSG study NWTS‐5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with stage IV favorable histology Wilms tumor (FHWT) with extrapulmonary metastases (EPM) constitute a small subset of patients with FHWT. Because of their rarity and heterogeneity, optimal FHWT treatment is not well understood. Children's Oncology Group protocol AREN0533 assigned patients with FHWT and EPM to intensified chemotherapy, regimen M, after initial DD-4A chemotherapy. To improve understanding of prognostic factors and best therapies, experiences of patients with EPM on AREN0533, as well as on protocols AREN03B2 and NWTS-5, were reviewed. METHODS: Combined outcomes for patients with EPM from NWTS-5, AREN0533, and AREN03B2 were determined. Those treated on AREN0533 were compared with those treated on NWTS-5. Prognostic factors were explored in the pooled cohort. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with FHWT with EPM enrolled on AREN0533, 37 enrolled on NWTS-5, and 64 were followed only on AREN03B2. The pooled cohort of all 148 patients demonstrated a 4-year event-free survival (EFS) of 77.3% (95% CI, 70.8-84.4) and 4-year overall survival of 88.9% (95% CI, 83.9-94.2). Four-year EFS of patients with EPM treated on AREN0533 was 76.0% (95% CI, 64.6-89.4) vs 64.9% (95% CI, 51.7-82.2) on NWTS-5; hazard ratio, 0.64, p = .26; no difference in overall survival was observed. Increasing linear age and slow incomplete lung response were associated with worse EFS in a pooled cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for patients with EPM are among the lowest for children with FHWT. Further trials with standardized surgical and radiation treatment to metastatic sites, and prospectively collected biologic and treatment details are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov identifiers: NCT00379340, NCT00898365, and NCT00002611.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".