Bilateral Wilms tumor with anaplasia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group Study AREN0534
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to examine the outcomes in children with anaplastic bilateral Wilms tumor (BWT) from study AREN0534 in order to define potential prognostic factors and areas to target in future clinical trials. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data from AREN0534 study patients with anaplasia (focal anaplasia [FA], or diffuse anaplasia [DA]) were compared. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were reported using Kaplan-Meier estimation with 95% confidence bands, and differences in outcomes between FA and DA compared using log-rank tests. The impact of margin status was analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven children who enrolled on AREN0534 had evidence of anaplasia (17 DA, 10 FA) in at least one kidney and were included in this analysis. Twenty-six (96%) had BWT. Nineteen percent had anaplastic histology in both kidneys (four of 17 DA, and one of 10 FA). Forty-six percent with BWT had bilateral nephron-sparing surgery (NSS); one child who went off protocol therapy, eventually required bilateral completion nephrectomies. Median follow-up for EFS and OS was 8.6 and 8.7 years from enrollment. Four- and 8-year EFS was 53% [95% confidence interval (CI): 34%-83%] for DA; 4-year EFS was 80% [95% CI: 59%-100%], and 8-year EFS 70% [95% CI: 47%-100%] for FA. Three out of 10 children with FA and eight out of 17 children with DA had events. EFS did not differ statistically by margin status (p = .79; HR = 0.88). Among the six children who died (five DA, one FA), all experienced prior relapse or progression within 18 months. CONCLUSION: Events in children with DA/FA in the setting of BWT occurred early. Caution should be taken about interpreting the impact of margin status outcomes in the context of contemporary multimodal therapy. Future targeted investigations in children with BWT and DA/FA are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".