Enhanced chemotherapy delivery by intraarterial infusion and blood‐brain barrier disruption in malignant brain tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of malignant brain tumors is hampered by the presence of the blood-brain barrier, which limits chemotherapy penetration to the central nervous system (CNS). In recent years, different strategies have been designed to circumvent this physiologic barrier. The osmotic blood-brain barrier disruption (BBBD) procedure is one such strategy, and has been studied extensively in preclinical and clinical studies. The authors detail their experience so far with the procedure in the context of an open Phase II study in the treatment of malignant brain tumors. METHODS: Patients with histologically proven malignant gliomas, primitive neuroectodermal tumors, primary CNS lymphomas, and metastatic disease to the brain were eligible. Patients enrolled were treated every 4 weeks (1 cycle) for < or = 12 cycles. A methotrexate-based regimen was offered to patients with lymphomas, whereas a carboplatin-based regimen was offered to patients with all other histologies. Before intraarterial chemotherapy infusion, patients were submitted to an osmotic BBBD procedure. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included in the current report. The overall median survival times (MST) from treatment initiation for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), anaplastic oligodendrogliomas, primary CNS lymphomas, and metastases were, respectively, 9.1, 13.9, not reached, and 9.9 months, whereas time to disease progression was 4.1, 9.2, 12.3, and 3.3 months. The MST from diagnosis was 32.2 months for GBM. CONCLUSIONS: These encouraging results prompted the authors to further refine their knowledge of the potential contribution of this procedure in the treatment of brain tumors. These authors designed a randomized Phase III study for patients with GBM that is now open.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".