Extremity rhabdomyosarcoma in children, adolescents and young adults: A report from Children's Oncology Group trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term survival and prognostic factors for patients with extremity rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) treated on contemporary Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials are unknown. METHODS: Data of extremity RMS patients enrolled on COG trials from 1998 to 2014 were analyzed to estimate event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), and factors associated with survival. RESULTS: The authors identified 264 extremity RMS patients, 159 (60%) localized and 105 (40%) metastatic. The 5-year EFS and OS of patients with localized disease was 62.6% (54%, 71.2%), and 78.7% (71.4%, 85.9%) and of those with metastatic disease was 7.7% (2.2%, 13.2%) and 22.7% (13.9%, 31.4%). Age at diagnosis was associated with EFS, whereas both sex and age at diagnosis were associated with OS. In metastatic patients, a lower Oberlin score was associated with improved EFS and OS, and females had improved OS. The 5-year EFS of patients with localized disease treated on the D9803 trial was not statistically different from those treated on ARST0531, but 5-year OS was statistically superior (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.43 [0.21, 0.86]) after adjusting for potential confounders. The 5-year EFS of group 3 patients undergoing delayed primary excision (DPE) with R0 margins was better than those with DPE with positive margins (adjHR 0.31 [0.11, 0.87]) and comparable to group 2 RMS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for metastatic extremity RMS remain poor. Among patients with localized disease, younger age, female sex, and treatment on D9803 were associated with improved OS, whereas DPE with R0 margins led to better EFS compared to DPE with positive margins in group 3 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".