MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415711782 · doi:10.1200/po-25-00557

Virtual CNS Tumor Board Rounds Within the Canadian Adolescent and Young Adult Neuro-Oncology Network

2025· article· en· W4415711782 on OpenAlexaffabout
Biren M. Dave, Mikayla Machado, Robert Siddaway, Natalie Massey, Abitha Suthakaran, Aimee Chan, Cyril Li, Derek S. Tsang, Sunit Das, Peter B. Dirks, Cynthia Hawkins, Uri Tabori, Seth Climans, Mary Jane Lim-Fat, Julie Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Precision Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYoung adultRadiation therapyMEDLINECancerWork (physics)Primary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE CNS tumors are a significant cause of death in the adolescent and young adult (AYA; age 15-39 years) population; however, these patients often lack standardized treatments. METHODS In Canada, we have established national multidisciplinary virtual AYA CNS tumor board rounds (national rounds) to improve and standardize care. From November 2021 to June 2024, 185 AYA patients with CNS tumors were presented from centers nationwide, including 138 patients with glioma. RESULTS Before case presentation, 5.1% of patients with glioma were taking targeted agents or were enrolled in clinical trials. However, after national rounds, 72.6% of patients with pediatric-type glioma and 45.9% of patients with adult-type glioma were recommended clinical trials and/or targeted agents. Among the 44 patients with glioma who had received radiation therapy before national rounds, only 14 were recommended further radiation. Cumulatively, 68.9% of patients analyzed received a treatment recommendation that represented a change in clinical management compared with their previous treatments. Concurrently, we performed molecular review of 174 AYA CNS tumors during the study time frame. Using TruSight, we identified gene fusions involving BRAF and FGFR1 in 17.9% and 7.4% of patients with low-grade glioma, respectively. Moreover, single-nucleotide variants in BRAF and FGFR1 were detected in 7.4% and 12.6% of patients with low-grade glioma, respectively. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that national rounds with centralized molecular review can direct AYA patients with CNS tumors toward targeted agents and clinical trials, while deferring radiation therapy. Taken together, our work details an ongoing effort to improve and standardize care of AYA patients with CNS tumors in Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueJCO Precision OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207