MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498943852 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2014-767

Abstract 767: Cyclosporin-modulated intensified-dosage chemotherapy for saving eyes with Group D intraocular retinoblastoma

2014· article· en· W1498943852 on OpenAlexaff
Helen S. L. Chan, Élise Héon, A. Linn Murphree, Paulita Pamela P. Astudillo, Helen Dimaras, Furqan Shaikh, Brenda L. Gallie

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboplatinMedicineEtoposideVincristineEnucleationChemotherapyRegimenSurgeryUrologyChemotherapy regimenRetinoblastomaCisplatinCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PURPOSE: Cyclosporin (CSA) inhibits the multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein. Since 2000, we tested increased carboplatin and increased etoposide dosages in a cyclosporin-modulated carboplatin-etoposide-vincristine protocol, followed by focal laser/cryotherapy consolidation, to avoid elective radiation of newly diagnosed retinoblastoma (RB) patients, since radiation increases the secondary cancer risk in patients with heritable RB. We report the results for International Classification Groups A, B, C and D intraocular eyes (Ophthalmol Clinic North Am 2005; 18:41-53). METHOD: When Neupogen support became available, we increased the predominantly myelotoxic carboplatin to 28 mg/kg (from 18.7 mg/kg in our previous trial) and etoposide to 12 mg/kg (from 7.7 mg/kg in our previous trial), but kept the predominantly neurotoxic vincristine unchanged at 0.05 mg/kg, modulated by the same cyclosporin schedule (33 mg/kg over 3 hours on each of the 2 days per cycle). We treated 34 eyes in 23 patients: 2 A eyes, 11 B eyes, 6 C eyes and 15 D eyes. This report focuses only on the most difficult to save Group D eyes, and compares results with a non-cyclosporin carboplatin (26 mg/kg) and etoposide (10 mg/kg), vincristine (0.05 mg/kg) regimen. Radiation or enucleation for recurrence was considered failure. RESULTS: We report the long-term results of 15 Group D eyes in 10 patients, at mean followup of 11.1 years and median followup of 10.8 years (range 5.7-13.4 years). Eye event-free rate was 53% for Group D (8/15) eyes. Seven D eyes failed, and 6 were enucleated and 1 radiated. No child lost both eyes. Toxicity rates were acceptable with 15.7% fever-and-neutropenia, 0.7% bacterial sepsis, 9.7% blood transfusion and 27.6% platelet transfusion, and no long-term renotoxicity or ototoxicity. In comparison, at mean followup of 4.5 years (range 0.4-9.8 years), in a previously reported (Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013; 60:688-693) non-cyclosporin regimen, the non-radiation eye event-free rate was 47% for Group D (26/55) eyes, with 5 eyes enucleated, and 24 eyes radiated (19 irradiated eyes retained; 5 irradiated eyes required enucleation). CONCLUSION: This cyclosporin-modulated intensified-dosage protocol was well-tolerated, with a non-radiation eye salvage rate of 53%, and 60% overall if the one irradiated but retained eye was included, in the most difficult to save Group D eyes. No child lost both eyes, and most avoided radiation. This same protocol is being tested in a multicenter trial. Citation Format: Helen S.L. Chan, Elise Héon, A Linn Murphree, Paulita P. Astudillo, Helen Dimaras, Furqan Shaikh, Brenda L. Gallie. Cyclosporin-modulated intensified-dosage chemotherapy for saving eyes with Group D intraocular retinoblastoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 767. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-767

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207