MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388588622 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad179.0599

INNV-10. GLIOMAS IN ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS – EXPERIENCE OF CASES PRESENTED AT NATIONAL AYA MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ROUNDS

2023· article· en· W4388588622 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Bennett, Natalie Massey, Sunit Das, Seth Climans, Maria MacDonald, Sébastien Perreault, Magimairajan Vanan, Stephen Yip, Sarah Lapointe, Derek S. Tsang, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins, Mary-Jane Lim-Fat

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of ManitobaLondon Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare ManitobaHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaPDGFRAOncologyInternal medicineKRASPopulationCDKN2AYoung adultCancerCancer researchColorectal cancerGiST

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Gliomas are the most common brain tumor in adolescents and young adults (AYA). IDH mutations are common in this population, though up to 30% of gliomas in AYA harbor a pediatric-type alteration including alterations in RAS/MAPK pathway and histone mutations. These can present a diagnostic and management dilemma in young adults given the limited data in this population. Here, we aim to describe glioma cases submitted for multi-disciplinary AYA rounds. METHODS Gliomas presented at the Canadian AYA Neuro-Oncology Network (CANON) rounds between April 2021 and June 2023 were compiled. Patient demographics, tumor histology and molecular alterations are described. Recommendations and themes from the multi-disciplinary rounds were summarized. RESULTS Of 132 cases presented, 96 were gliomas. Median age was 28 years (range 15-59). Twelve (12.5%) cases were IDH-mutant. Remaining cases included low grade glioma (LGG, n=37, 38.5%), IDH-WT high grade gliomas (HGG, n=22, 22.9%) and diffuse midline glioma (n=13, 13.5%). Of the LGGs, 13 gliomas had FGFR-alteration, 9 had BRAF-alteration, 3 had NF-1 with 4 having rare alterations typically seen in children (KRAS, NTRK fusion, PDGFRa K385-mut). Recommendations included discussion to start targeted therapy or management of toxicities due to targeted inhibitors in 16 cases. Of the HGGs, 7 (31.8%) had underlying cancer predisposition syndrome (NF-1 n=4, mismatch repair deficiency n=3). Management questions included role of re-resection, timing of radiation, duration of targeted therapies and access to targeted agents through clinical trials or compassionate access programs. CONCLUSION Within national rounds, there was enrichment of pediatric-type tumors and patients with cancer predisposition syndromes. Targeted agents are available for many of these driver mutations with potential improved outcomes; however, access to these agents in AYA may be limited. Clinicians face complex management questions in this population and underscores the need for a multi-disciplinary approach along with clinical trial opportunities for these patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→