Temozolomide rechallenge in recurrent malignant glioma by using a continuous temozolomide schedule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in first-line therapy, there are few data on treatment of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) at recurrence. Temozolomide (TMZ) is well tolerated and may have activity despite prior TMZ exposure if novel dose schedules are used. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience with a continuous TMZ schedule (50 mg/m(2) daily), given at progression after conventional 5-day TMZ. Patients were reported in 3 groups: 1) GBM after progression on conventional TMZ; 2) GBM at first recurrence after completion of standard concomitant and adjuvant TMZ; and 3) patients with other anaplastic gliomas at second relapse on conventional TMZ. RESULTS: In Group 1, 21 patients with a median age of 54 years (range, 33 years-68 years) received a median of 3 cycles (range, 2-12 cycles) of continuous TMZ at 50 mg/m(2). Overall clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, and stable disease) was 47%, with 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) of 17%. In Group 2, 14 patients with GBM, median age 52 years (range, 38 years-62 years) received continuous TMZ at progression after initial TMZ/radiotherapy (RT) and adjuvant TMZ. The median interval after adjuvant TMZ was 3 months (range, 2 months-10 months). A median of 5 cycles of TMZ was given, and 6-month PFS was 57%. In Group 3, 14 patients with a median age of 49 years (range, 34 years-56 years) received continuous TMZ; 2 partial responses and 6 with stable disease were seen, with a 6-month PFS of 42%. Toxicities were mild and well tolerated; lymphopenia was common but no serious opportunistic infections were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although retrospective, our results demonstrate that continuous daily administration of TMZ is an active regimen despite prior TMZ therapy. The excellent tolerability of this regimen may allow future combination with other alkylating agents or with novel therapies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".