MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Refining intermediate-risk (IR) stratification in patients (Pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving first-line (1L) immunotherapy (IO) within one year of diagnosis (Dx): Findings from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

2025· article· en· W4410822960 on OpenAlexaff
Razane El Hajj Chehade, Rashad Nawfal, Karl Semaan, Marc Eid, Eddy Saad, Marc Machaalani, Emre Yekedüz, Clara Steiner, Wassim Daoud Khatoun, David Maj, Martín Zarbá, J. Connor Wells, Sumanta K. Pal, Cristina Suárez, Kosuke Takemura, Haoran Li, Sylvan C. Baca, Wanling Xie, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaImmunotherapyMetastatic Urothelial CarcinomaInternal medicineOncologyRisk stratificationCancerUrothelial carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4556 Background: The IMDC risk model is pivotal for predicting clinical outcomes in pts with mRCC, yet variability exists within the IR group. Moreover, therapy initiation within < 1 year post dx, a predominant IMDC risk factor, significantly influences prognosis. Thus, this study evaluates this heterogeneity in IO era, focusing on patients receiving 1L IO within < 1 year post dx. Methods: Data from pts with mRCC receiving 1L IO within < 1 year post dx, with IMDC score of 1 or 2, were retrospectively collected from the IMDC. Score 1 pts were defined as those who started treatment < 1 year post dx, while score 2 pts had an additional IMDC risk factor: low hemoglobin (Hb), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) < 80, high neutrophil, high calcium (Ca), or high platelet (Plt) count. We assessed overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) using Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, nephrectomy status, histological type, presence of one or more metastases, and 1L regimen type (IO+IO vs. IO+VEGF). The response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Results: Of the 670 pts initiating 1L IO < 1 year post dx, 331 had an IMDC score of 1, and 339 had a score of 2, subdivided into 5 subgroups as detailed in the table. Pts' median age was 62 years (IQR: 55-69). Median follow-up was 16.6 months. Response rates, 18-month OS, and 6-month TTF rates for each group are shown in the table. Adding the factor of treatment initiation < 1 year post dx, the high neutrophil count has the most significant effect on OS (HR = 4.85, 95% CI: 2.61-9.03, p < 0.001). Also, KPS < 80 significantly affects both OS (HR = 3.93,95%CI = 2.26-6.84), p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 1.59 95%CI = 1.02-2.61, p = 0.04). Low hemoglobin, as well as high calcium, notably worsen OS without significant impact on TTF. High Plt count shows no significant impact on OS and TTF, possibly due to the low prevalence of this risk factor (15/670). Conclusions: Additional risk factors can affect the prognosis of pts with mRCC receiving IO < 1 year post dx. Integrating other biomarkers or radiological features could refine risk stratification, enhancing treatment approaches for IR pts. % response 18-month OS rate Adj. HR for OS (95% CI) 6-month TTF rate Adj. HR for TTF (95% CI) IMDC=1 Ddx to start ttt<1 year (N=331) 46% 85% REF 65% REF IMDC=2 Dx to start ttt<1 year+ Low Hb(N=255) 37% 73% 1.83(1.33-2.5) p=0.002* 56% 1.04 (1.02-2.48) P=0.66 Dx to start ttt<1 year+ KPS<80 (N=30) 30% 57% 3.93 (2.26-6.84) p<0.001* 50% 1.59(1.02-2.61)P=0.04* Dx to start ttt<1 year+ High Neutrophils (N=22) 9.1% 51% 4.85(2.61-9.03)p<0.001* 41% 1.41(0.86-2.34)P =0.16 Dx to start ttt<1 year+ High Ca (N=17) 35% 67% 2.68(1.27-5.62)p=0.01* 65% 1.09(0.62-1.93)P=0.75 Dx to start ttt<1 year+ High plt (N=15) 33% 63% 2.08(0.83-5.23)p=0.11 42% 1.29 (0.69-2.38)P=0.42

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→