MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408169488 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.124.269289

[<sup>18</sup>F]-FDG PET/CT in the Initial Staging of Squamous Cell Cancer of the Anal Canal: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Registry

2025· article· en· W4408169488 on OpenAlexaff
Ur Metser, Jelena Luković, Aruz Mesci, Pamela MacCrostie, Rosanna Chan, Victor Mak, Lisa Avery, Amit Singnurkar, Deanna L. Langer, Ina Ly, Andrés Kohan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnal cancerMedicineSquamous cell cancerNuclear medicineAnal canalCancerProspective cohort studyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (ACC), disease stage influences treatment plans and determines prognosis. Our purpose was to determine the impact of PET on the initial staging of patients with presumed stages II–IV ACC and to assess the association of disease stage per conventional workup (CW) and PET imaging to patient outcomes. <b>Methods:</b> In this multicenter registry, patients with CW stages II–IV ACC or equivocal findings for a specific stage were included. Demographic data and stage according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) version 7 as determined by CW and PET were recorded and compared with overall survival (OS). For patients from 1 of the participating institutions, CW and PET stage according to AJCC versions 7–9 were compared with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. <b>Results:</b> There were 813 patients included. PET upstaged 150 of 531 patients (28.2%) and downstaged 84 of 531 patients (15.8%) and assigned a specific stage to 200 of 232 patients (86.2%) with equivocal findings on CW. Stage IV on PET was predictive of significantly poorer OS (<i>P</i> = 0.005). For the 136 patients with staging according to AJCC versions 7–9, CW stages I–IV per versions 7–9 were not predictive of OS (<i>P</i> = 0.684, 0.329, and 0.083, respectively) or PFS (<i>P</i> = 0.622, 0.606, and 0.115, respectively). However, PET stages I–IV per versions 7–9 were associated with OS (<i>P</i> = 0.037, 0.003, 0.003, respectively) and PFS (<i>P</i> = 0.004, &lt;0.001, &lt;0.001, respectively), with version 9 best discriminating PFS for stages II and III. <b>Conclusion:</b> In patients with presumed stages II–IV ACC, PET stage differs in up to 44% from CW. PET assigns a specific stage in most patients with equivocal staging on CW. The PET-derived stage was predictive of PFS and OS. Because of its superior prognostication, PET should be used routinely to stage patients with ACC clinical stage II or above.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207