P02.02 Treatment and Outcomes in Glioblastoma Multiforme: A multi-country chart review study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There is an existing unmet need in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) due lack of effective treatment options. To understand the treatment landscape as newer agents are in development, it was the objective of this study to gain a better understanding of the current treatment of second line (2L) GBM therapy with related outcomes in a “real-world” setting in Canada, France and Germany. Methods: A retrospective, chart-review study was conducted in each country; 72 oncologists were recruited to contribute patients ≥18 years of age, newly diagnosed with GBM between January 1, 2013 - June 30, 2015 with a minimum of 12 months follow-up or until death. Excluded were those treated with investigational agents. Patients were followed through August 2016. Enrollment was in 2 cohorts, Cohort 1 comprising a random selection of 337 patients irrespective of line of the therapy (LOT). Cohort 2 included 136 patients who received more than one LOT for a total N = 473 (146 each in France and Germany, and 181 in Canada). Demographics and treatment data were analyzed descriptively. Survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis censoring for date of chart abstraction in surviving patients. Results: Patients were 61% male with mean (SD) age of 61.4 (12.0) years at initial diagnosis. Overall, most patients (92%) were treated 1L with temozolomide (TMZ) monotherap and 88% received radiation. In the 337 patient random sample, 97 (29%) received 2L treatment. A total of 233 patients in both cohorts were analyzed for 2L treatment and outcomes. Of all 2L-treated patients the majority were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance grade 1 (38%) or 2 (49%) at the time of 2L start. In 2L, 27% were retreated with TMZ monotherapy, 7% received TMZ in combination with other agents, 40% received bevacizumab either as monotherapy 22%, or combination therapy (18%). In all patients receiving a 2L therapy, complete response following 2L was achieved by 5%, 23% partial response and 29%, stable disease. Median overall survival from start of 2L was 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5 – 8.5) in all patients, (7.0 [95% CI 6–8.1] in France; 6.0 [95% CI 4.5–7.4] in Germany; 10.5 [95% CI 8.6–12.5] in Canada). Conclusions: Most GBM patients received TMZ during 1L and bevacizumab monotherapy or combination therapy during 2L treatment with some regional differences. Survival following initiation of 2L treatment was poor. Prognosis remains grim under current treatment paradigms.
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 | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».