Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36346113›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2023

PREDICT-GTN 1: Can we improve the FIGO scoring system in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia?

Victoria L Parker, Matthew C Winter, John A Tidy, Barry W Hancock, Julia E Palmer, Naveed Sarwar, Baljeet Kaur, Katie McDonald, Xianne Aguiar, Kamaljit Singh and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. FIGO staging for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: 2026.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria L ParkerDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8748-4583
Matthew C WinterDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
John A TidySheffield Centre for Trophoblastic Disease, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Barry W HancockDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Julia E PalmerSheffield Centre for Trophoblastic Disease, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Naveed SarwarGestational Trophoblastic Disease Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Baljeet KaurGestational Trophoblastic Disease Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Katie McDonaldSheffield Centre for Trophoblastic Disease, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Xianne AguiarGestational Trophoblastic Disease Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Kamaljit SinghSheffield Centre for Trophoblastic Disease, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Nick UnsworthGestational Trophoblastic Disease Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Imran JabbarSheffield Centre for Trophoblastic Disease, Weston Park Cancer Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Allan A PaceyDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Robert F HarrisonDepartment of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Michael J SecklGestational Trophoblastic Disease Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Weston Park Cancer Centre · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UKDepartment of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients are treated according to the eight-variable International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) scoring system, that aims to predict first-line single-agent chemotherapy resistance. FIGO is imperfect with one-third of low-risk patients developing disease resistance to first-line single-agent chemotherapy. We aimed to generate simplified models that improve upon FIGO. Logistic regression (LR) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) modelling (n = 4191) generated six models (M1-6). M1, all eight FIGO variables (scored data); M2, all eight FIGO variables (scored and raw data); M3, nonimaging variables (scored data); M4, nonimaging variables (scored and raw data); M5, imaging variables (scored data); and M6, pretreatment hCG (raw data) + imaging variables (scored data). Performance was compared to FIGO using true and false positive rates, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, Bland-Altman calibration plots, decision curve analysis and contingency tables. M1-6 were calibrated and outperformed FIGO on true positive rate and positive predictive value. Using LR and MLP, M1, M2 and M4 generated small improvements to the ROC curve and decision curve analysis. M3, M5 and M6 matched FIGO or performed less well. Compared to FIGO, most (excluding LR M4 and MLP M5) had significant discordance in patient classification (McNemar's test P < .05); 55-112 undertreated, 46-206 overtreated. Statistical modelling yielded only small gains over FIGO performance, arising through recategorisation of treatment-resistant patients, with a significant proportion of under/overtreatment as the available data have been used a priori to allocate primary chemotherapy. Streamlining FIGO should now be the focus.

Indexed as

Gestational Trophoblastic DiseaseFemaleHumansModels, StatisticalPregnancyRetrospective StudiesFIGOgestational trophoblastic neoplasiascoring system

Identifiers

PMID36346113
PMCPMC10108153
OpenAlexW4308554339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.