MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retinoblastoma patient outcomes in the contemporary era: The RIVERBOAT Consortium.

2025· article· en· W4410805371 on OpenAlexaff
Murali Chintagumpala, Emma Schremp, Tatsuki Koyama, Lili Sun, Lori Ann F. Kehler, Bruce Crooks, Helen Dimaras, Cynthia E. Herzog, Sandra Luna‐Fineman, Raj Nagarajan, Mary Lou Schmidt, Cindy L. Schwartz, Amish C. Shah, Joanna Weinstein, Anthony B. Daniels, Joseph Philip Neglia, Debra L. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinoblastomaOncologyFamily medicineInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10062 Background: Retinoblastoma (RB) is the most common childhood eye tumor. Intraocular RB cure rates approach 100%. Therefore, treatment now focuses on globe salvage and preserving functional vision. The Research into Visual Endpoints and RB Health Outcomes After Treatment (RIVERBOAT) consortium was established to examine patient outcomes in the transitional era from systemic to intraocular therapy. Methods: Patients with RB treated at 13 North American centers from 2008-2022 were identified. Medical record abstraction was performed for disease presentation, visual acuity, treatment, globe salvage and functional outcome. Enrollment on the study included submission of retrospective data and prospective data on newly diagnosed patients as well as retrospective data from chart reviews. Results: 830 patients (68% white race, 77% non-Hispanic ethnicity) were enrolled. In 420 of these, data was limited to chart review. Median age at diagnosis of the 830 patients (1165 eyes) was 1 year (0 - 16.3) and at enrollment was 7.8 years (0 - 28.6). 60% had unilateral disease and the eye group distribution (International Intraocular Retinoblastoma Classification) was 10% A, 16% B, 12% C, 31% D, 27% E, and 4% unknown (UK). Of the 1165 affected eyes, major treatment modalities included primary enucleation (15%), systemic chemotherapy (SC) (36%), intraarterial chemotherapy (IAC) (10%), SC followed by IAC in 9%, and intravitreal chemotherapy in combination in 6%. SC only was used in 55-59% of those with A-C eyes compared to 29% of D eyes. IAC only was used in 20% of D eyes and 16% of C eyes. Secondary enucleation occurred in 151 eyes (14%): 63/416 (15%) of SC; 34/120 (28%) of IAC; 25/106 (24%) of SC followed by IAC; 29/523 (6%) other treatments. The overall globe salvage rate was 86%. Second malignancies occurred in 5, metastatic disease in 8 and pineoblastoma in 3 patients. Eleven patients died of RB (1%). Visual acuity after treatment was reported in 229 eyes: 106 (eye group 24 A, 37 B, 22 C, 19 D, 3 E, 1 UK) had normal vision (20/20-20/40). 38 eyes, (6 A, 11 B, 4 C, 10 D, 5 E, 2 UK) had moderate vision loss ( > 20/40 – 20/70). Twenty-five eyes (5 B, 2 C, 16 D, 2 E) had low vision ( > 20/70 < 20/200), and 60 eyes (12 B, 7 C, 32 D, 8 E, 1 UK) were legally blind (>20/200). In those treated with IAC only, normal vision was found in 30% of eyes, moderate vision loss in 22%, low vision in 13%, and legal blindness in 35%. In those treated with SC only, normal vision was noted in 53% of eyes, moderate vision loss in 11%, low vision in 11%, and legal blindness in 25%. In those treated with SC followed by IAC, normal vision was reported in 32%, moderate vision in 26%, low vision in 5% and legal blindness in 37%. Conclusions: We demonstrate the significant benefits witnessed by the evolution of RB therapy. Cure rates remain high, with a very low incidence of second malignancies, metastatic disease or trilateral RB. Eye salvage rate was excellent, avoiding low vision or legal blindness in two-thirds of the patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.369 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207