MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcome of children and young adults with localized extremity rhabdomyosarcoma treated on Children's Oncology Group trials.

2024· article· en· W4399281370 on OpenAlexaff
Sapna Oberoi, Wei Xue, Amira Qumseya, Thomas J. Scharschmidt, Odion Binitie, Joel Sorger, Kiran Kumar, Kenneth Wong, Sarah S. Donaldson, Lisa A. Teot, Erin R. Rudzinski, Rajkumar Venkatramani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRhabdomyosarcomaPediatric oncologyPediatricsClinical trialOncologyInternal medicineCancerSarcomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10006 Background: Extremity rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) accounts for 15-20% of patients with localized RMS. The long-term survival and associated prognostic factors of extremity RMS patients treated on the contemporary Children’s Oncology Group (COG) trials have not been reported. Methods: Patients with localized extremity RMS enrolled on the D9602, D9803, ARST0331 and ARST0531 COG trials were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meyer method estimated event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS). The Log-rank test and Cox regression were used to estimate the prognostic significance of age at diagnosis, sex, race, tumor site & size, IRS group, stage, histology, FOXO1 fusion status, anaplasia, lymph node involvement, delayed primary excision (DPE) and radiation on survival. Results: We identified 159 patients with localized extremity RMS; 108 (68%) were < 10 years at diagnosis, 84(53%) had primary tumor > 5 cm, and 35 (22%) and 98 (62%) had IRS group II and III disease. Histology was alveolar in 106 (67%), and 43 (27%) had regional lymph node involvement on imaging or pathology. Seventeen were treated on low-risk (LR) studies D9602 (N = 10) and ARST0331 (N = 7), whereas 142 were treated on intermediate-risk (IR) trials D9803 (N = 85) and ARST0531 (N = 57). Eighty patients (50%) underwent primary surgical excision and 121 (76%) received radiotherapy. DPE was attempted in 60 patients (38%), resulting in an R0 (microscopically negative) margin in 48 (80%). Relapse/progression occurred in 52 patients: metastatic 26 (50%), local 22 (42%), and combined 3(6%). The 5-year EFS and OS of the whole cohort were 62.6% (95% CI: 54%-71.2%) and 78.7%% (95%CI: 71.4%-85.9%). LR patients treated on D9602 and ARST0331 trials had comparable 5-year EFS (70% vs. 71.4%, p-0.90) and OS (90% vs. 85.7%, p-0.54), respectively, while IR patients had significantly better 5-year EFS (68.9% vs. 51%, p-0.023) and OS (86.2% vs. 64.4%, p-0.007) on D9803 trial than ARST0531 trial. The 5-year EFS and OS of IRS group III patients with DPE with R0 margins were comparable to IRS group II patients (70.4% vs. 66.6%) & (86.5% vs. 84.6%), respectively. On univariable analysis, age at diagnosis and sex were associated with EFS, while age at diagnosis, sex, tumor size, IRS group, stage and fusion status were associated with OS (p < 0.05). None of the analyzed factors demonstrated independent statistical association with EFS, whereas female sex was the only factor independently associated with OS [Hazard ratio (HR): 0.4, 95% CI 0.20-0.85)]. Conclusions: IR localized extremity RMS patients treated on ARST0531 had suboptimal outcome. Survival of IRS group III patients with R0 DPE was comparable to IRS group II patients. Females with localized extremity RMS had better OS than males. Clinical trial information: NCT00354835 ; NCT00003958 ; NCT00075582 ; NCT00002995 .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→