MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Baseline radiological tumor burden to sub-stratify IMDC risk groups in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line therapy: A post hoc analysis from a randomized phase III trial.

2025· article· en· W4410823148 on OpenAlexaff
Rashad Nawfal, Razane El Hajj Chehade, Karl Semaan, Marc Eid, Liliana Ascione, Eddy Saad, Wassim Daoud Khatoun, Jad El Masri, Wenxin Xu, Emre Yekedüz, Maxine Sun, David A. Braun, Saurabh Gupta, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Katherine M. Krajewski, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisRenal cell carcinomaOncologyRadiological weaponInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4544 Background: Baseline radiological tumor burden (BRTB) is a measurement derived from routine CT scans and reflects baseline tumor burden. Herein we assess the utility of BRTB to help with risk assessment within IMDC risk subgroups from a randomized prospective phase III study. Methods: We reviewed data of 701 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from the CheckMate 9ER trial (Choueiri, NEJM 2021). Patients with BRTB measurement per investigator using RECIST v1.1 at baseline were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). To evaluate the impact of BRTB on OS and PFS, we used univariate and multivariable Cox regression models for each IMDC subgroup accounting for age, sex, race, stage at diagnosis, sarcomatoid features and regimen type (IO+VEGFi, VEGFi). Results: Favorable, intermediate and poor risk IMDC subgroups included 157/701, 392/701 and 132/701 patients, respectively. This cohort included 63, 187 and 94 OS events and 112, 290 and 103 PFS events in favorable, intermediate and poor risk groups, respectively. For the favorable risk group, BRTB was not associated with OS or PFS on multivariable analysis (HR adjusted = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.68 and HR adjusted = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99 – 1.00, p = 0.99, respectively). Similarly for the poor risk group, BRTB was not associated with OS or PFS on multivariable analysis (HR adjusted = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.99-1.06, p = 0.06 and HR adjusted = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.98 – 1.04, p = 0.54, respectively). However, in the intermediate risk group, higher BRTB was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.05 for each 1 cm increase in BRTB, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07, p < 0.0001) and PFS (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01-1.05, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BRTB remained associated with both OS and PFS (HR adjusted = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07, p < 0.0001 and HR adjusted = 1.03, 95%CI: 1.02 – 1.05, p < 0.0001, respectively). Further, we stratified IMDC intermediate risk group outcomes according to BRTB median value of 6.33cm (Table). Conclusions: While BRTB does not appear to predict outcomes in favorable and poor-risk subgroups in this study, BRTB is a useful metric for sub-stratification of the intermediate-risk IMDC subgroup. External validation is imperative to validate these findings and explore BRTB integration into clinical decision-making in mRCC. Stratification of the intermediate IMDC risk group according to baseline radiological tumor burden median (6.33cm). Intermediate low BRTB (n=196) Intermediate high BRTB (n=196) Log rank p value Median OS, months(95% CI) NR (49.5 – NR) 30.9 (24.4 – 40) p < 0.0001 Median PFS, months(95% CI) 15.84 (11.83 – 18.3) 8.41 (6.97 – 11.1) p < 0.001

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.333 · 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→