MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414518226 · doi:10.3390/cancers17193113

Population-Based Survival of Childhood and Adolescent Cancers (0–19 Years) in Madrid: Analysis by Sex, Age, Tumour Type, and Stage

2025· article· en· W4414518226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raquel López‐González, David Parra Blázquez, Candela Pino‐Rosón, Clotilde Sevilla-Hernández, Marina Pollán, Núria Aragonés

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIEuropean CommissionPhysicians Committee for Responsible MedicineComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)Cancer registryCancerChildhood cancerProportional hazards modelSurvival analysisOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: In Europe, over 80% of children diagnosed with cancer survive at least 5 years. To improve cancer monitoring, the Paediatric Population-Based Cancer Registry (PCRM) was established in the Community of Madrid. This study aimed to describe population-based 1-, 3- and 5-year survival for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer, by sex, age, tumour type and stage at diagnosis. Methods: Data were extracted from the PCRM, which reviews all cases identified through integrated primary care, hospital discharge, and mortality data, using electronic medical records. Patients aged 0–19 diagnosed with primary malignant cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included, with follow-up for vital status through October 2024. Stage was classified using the 2014 Toronto Childhood Cancer Staging Guidelines (tier 2). Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate survival, and log-rank tests assessed group differences. Cox regression was used to quantify the effect of localized vs. advanced disease. Results: The analysis included 862 patients. Most frequent cancers were leukaemia (24.1%), lymphomas (22.2%) and central nervous system (CNS) tumours (12.6%). Stage was assigned to 88.4% tumours. Overall survival was 93.6% in 1 year and 85.9% in 5 years. Five-year survival was 83.7% for leukaemia, 97.4% for lymphomas, 66.1% for CNS tumours; 85.8% in boys vs. 85.9% in girls (p = 0.908); 85.2% in children aged 0–14 years vs. 87.8% in adolescents aged 15–19 years (p = 0.314); and 69.9% for advanced vs. 89.7% for early-stage (p < 0.001), with a 3.3-fold higher mortality risk. Conclusions: This population-based study offers promising survival estimates reaching 86% globally at 5 years while revealing differences by cancer type and stage. It also highlights the Toronto Guidelines as a valuable tool for standardizing cancer registry methods and providing useful epidemiological indicators.

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)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207