Safety and efficacy of presurgical neoadjuvant low-dose temozolomide in glioma patients.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e12510^ Background: Temozolomide (TMZ) has become the chemotherapy of choice for patients with malignant glioma. Activity has been demonstrated in a range of tumor histologies and tumor grades. A possible mechanism of resistance is the presence of high methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) in the tumor leading to reduced cytotoxic activity of TMZ. Experimental models have shown that continuous exposure to TMZ can deplete MGMT activity and possibly restore sensitivity to TMZ. Presurgical (neoadjuvant) treatment with TMZ may be beneficial in reducing MGMT activity and improving patient outcome. Methods: This phase II study assessed the safety and efficacy of TMZ at a dose of 75 mg/m2 administered daily for 14 days prior to surgery for treatment-naïve glioma. Results: 40 patients, median age 47 (18-76) with surgically resectable tumors were enrolled from December 2006 to December 2009. Ninteen male and 21 female patients self-selected to TMZ (34) or control (6) cohorts. Tumors were: oligodendrogliomas 37%, astrocytomas 28%, glioblastoma multiforme 18% and Mixed tumors 17%; 50% were high grade tumors. A majority of patients 63% had a partial resection; the remaining had a complete resection. MGMT promoter methylation was performed on fresh frozen tissue and significant levels were found in 60% of patients. All patients in the TMZ cohort completed 2 weeks of therapy. Treatment was well tolerated and toxicities were rare with 60% of patients not reporting any treatment related adverse events. Lymphopenia was the only grade 3 toxicity observed in TMZ treated patients. No grade 4 toxicities were reported. At histological examination, an increased number of apoptotic cells were observed in tumor from TMZ patients. Conclusions: Presurgical neoadjuvant TMZ is well tolerated with few toxicities observed. The increased number of apoptotic cells demonstrated action of TMZ on the tumors and suggest tumor cytoreduction could be performed before surgery. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Position Consultant or Advisory Role Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Schering-Plough Canada/Merck Schering-Plough Canada/Merck Merck Schering-Plough Canada/Merck Schering-Plough Canada/Merck In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519-521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting. For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2010 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings. For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».