Diffuse infiltrating retinoblastoma: a multicentre, international, data-sharing study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the unique clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of diffuse infiltrating retinoblastoma (DIR). METHODS: This international, multicentre, registry-based retrospective case series analysed pooled data from January 2001 to December 2013, including 132 eyes from 132 patients with DIR. RESULTS: Among 2854 eyes with retinoblastoma, 132 (4.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 5.5) had DIR. The median age at diagnosis for DIR patients was 24 months (IQR, 15-33), with no bilateral cases of DIR. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging showed 4.5% cT2 and 95.5% cT3 categories, with no cT1 or cT4 cases. Clinical features associated with DIR included secondary glaucoma (67%), retinal detachment (38%), diffuse vitreous seeds (37%), anterior segment involvement (24%), vitreous haemorrhage (50%) and hyphema (6%). Primary enucleation was the predominant treatment (81%), while 19% initially received systemic chemotherapy, with 6% requiring subsequent enucleation. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate for cT3 DIR was 82% (95% CI, 78 to 86), significantly lower than the 94% (95% CI, 93 to 95) for cT3 non-DIR cases (p<0.001). Cox proportional hazards regression returned a higher risk of metastatic death for DIR cT3 compared with non-DIR cT3 (HR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8 to 5.9; p<0.001). High-risk pathological features were more frequent in DIR (41% vs 28%, p=0.004). There was no association between DIR and local treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 20 patients with retinoblastoma had DIR, which often presented with glaucoma, anterior segment involvement or intraocular bleeding. DIR was more lethal than non-DIR cT3, with enucleation revealing high-risk pathology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".