MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393276550 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1372548

Incidence of second primary cancers in patients with retinoblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4393276550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jinfeng Sun, Xiuli Gu, Liangjun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)OncologyRadiation therapyBreast cancerRetinoblastomaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk of second primary cancers (SPCs) among retinoblastoma (Rb) patients, both hereditary and nonhereditary. Previous studies have reported on the long-term risk of SPCs in these patient populations, but a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence is lacking. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to 12 March 2023, supplemented by manual screening. Eligible studies were identified, and data were extracted. The primary outcome measure was the standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of SPCs in Rb patients. Summary estimates were calculated using random or fixed effects models. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Ten studies, including nine high-quality studies, were included in this review. The summary estimate of SIR for SPCs among hereditary Rb patients was 17.55 (95% CI=13.10-23.51), while the pooled estimate of SIR for SPCs among nonhereditary Rb patients was 1.36 (95% CI=0.90-2.04). Significant differences in SIRs for different SPC types were observed (P=0.028), including nasal cavity tumor (SIR=591.06, 95% CI=162.79-2146.01), bone tumor (SIR=442.91, 95% CI=191.63-1023.68), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR=202.93, 95% CI=114.10-360.93), CNS (SIR=12.84, 95% CI=8.80-18.74), and female breast cancer (SIR=3.68, 95% CI=2.52-5.37). Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were associated with an increased risk of SPCs among hereditary Rb patients. Discussion: The findings of this review indicate that hereditary Rb patients have a significantly elevated risk of developing SPCs, whereas nonhereditary Rb patients do not show the same risk. Furthermore, significant differences were observed in the SIRs of different SPC types. Treatment techniques, specifically chemotherapy and radiation therapy, were associated with an increased risk of SPCs among hereditary Rb patients. These findings highlight the importance of radiation protection for Rb patients and the need for further research and tailored management strategies for this high-risk population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207