Associations of Patient Age, Tumor Nephrectomy Weight, and Tumor Diameter with Event-Free and Overall Survival in Stage I or II Favorable Histology Wilms Tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate age, tumor nephrectomy weight (TNW), or tumor diameter (TD) as continuous prognostic variables for outcomes in early-stage favorable histology Wilms tumor (FHWT) after accounting for biology and treatment. BACKGROUND: Patient age (<2 vs ≥2 years) and TNW (<550 g vs ≥550 g) have been used to risk-stratify children with stage I FHWT on Children's Oncology Group (COG) studies and select patients for omission of chemotherapy. METHODS: Included patients had stage I or II FHWT per central review and were treated with nephrectomy only, EE4A, or DD4A on COG trials. Restricted cubic splines models were used to estimate the stage-specific effects of age, TNW, and TD on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), accounting for treatment and biology. RESULTS: In pooled analyses of 775 stage I and 936 stage II patients, age was not significantly associated with EFS or OS for stage I or II patients after accounting for adverse biology that is more prevalent with older age. Greater TNW and larger TD were associated with increased risk of relapse in stage I and increased risk of death in stage II, but not when restricted to patients <4 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Age, TNW, and TD are each prognostic for EFS or OS in some cohorts of patients with stage I or II FHWT. However, after accounting for adverse biology that becomes more prevalent at older ages, these factors are no longer independently prognostic. The next COG FHWT study will implement and validate these findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".