MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415123776 · doi:10.1097/mph.0000000000003123

Relapsed Wilms Tumor Management and Outcomes in Canada: A Report From CYP-C

2025· article· en· W4415123776 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amy D. Lu, Conrad V. Fernandez, Rodrigo Romao, Ronald Grant, Paul Gibson, Jack Brzezinski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilms' tumorIntervention (counseling)DiseaseResectionMEDLINEOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wilms tumor (WT) is the most common pediatric renal tumor. While relapse of WT occurs in up to 15%, its management is not well characterized. We aimed to describe the Canadian experience in relapsed WT and the potential effect of surgical intervention as part of multimodal therapy on survival. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients with relapsed WT between 2001 and 2020 from the Cancer in Young People in Canada program (CYP-C), a population-based surveillance program. Four-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of surgical intervention on 4-year EFS/OS was evaluated through a Cox proportional hazards model (which included the number of upfront chemotherapy drugs). RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were identified. Median age at relapse was 5.2 years (range: 0.4 to 16.0) and median time to relapse from initial diagnosis was 13.0 months (range: 3.0 to 73.0). 28.9% of relapses occurred after initial upfront treatment with 2 chemotherapy drugs versus 62.9% with ≥3 drugs. Four-year EFS and OS from time of first relapse were 54.0% (95% CI: 44.6-65.4) and 61.6% (95% CI: 52.4-72.6), respectively. Seventy-one percent of patients with relapsed WT had surgery as part of multimodal therapy. The hazard ratio associated with surgical intervention in multiple regression was 0.54 for EFS (95% CI: 0.29-1.02; P =.06) and 0.36 for OS (95% CI: 0.19-0.71; P =.003). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes compare favorably to those reported by international cooperative groups. More favorable survival was observed in patients amenable to surgical intervention at relapse. This association may reflect a true therapeutic benefit of resection or may be confounded by the extent of disease at presentation, response to chemotherapy, the patient's performance status, or other variables. The impact of these on outcomes should be further investigated.

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)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/OncologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207