MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1641161485 · doi:10.5430/jst.v5n2p105

Irinotecan and temozolomide in adults with recurrent sarcoma

2015· article· en· W1641161485 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Phillip Blanchette, Aaron Lo, Pamela Ng, Albiruni R. Abdul Razak, Eitan Amir, David Hogg, Martin E. Blackstein, Abha A. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineIrinotecanSarcomaNeutropeniaInternal medicineChemotherapyRhabdomyosarcomaTemozolomideAnemiaOncologySurgeryLeiomyosarcomaGastroenterologyCancerPathologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The combination of irinotecan and temozolomide (IT) has shown promising activity in children treated for recurrent sarcoma. This study investigates the safety and efficacy of IT chemotherapy in adults with recurrent sarcoma. Materials/Methods: A retrospective review was performed on patients with recurrent sarcoma who received IT chemotherapy from 2009-2013. Outcomes of interest were time to treatment failure (TTF) and incidence of toxicity. Results: IT chemotherapy was used in 24 patients including: Ewing’s sarcoma (EWS, n=11, 46%); non-pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS, n=6, 25%); desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT, n=6, 25%); and leiomyosarcoma (n=1, 4%). Median TTF was 3.0 months (range 1.6-4.4). Partial responses were observed in 4 patients (17%), stable disease in 9 patients (37%) and progressive disease in 11 patients (46%). Grade 3 hematologic toxicity was as follows: anemia (n=5, 21%); neutropenia (n=3, 12%); and thrombocytopenia (n=1, 4%). Diarrhea was reported among 12 patients (50%) and 3 patients (12%) experienced severe diarrhea requiring hospitalization. Conclusion: IT chemotherapy is tolerable with modest activity and represents a reasonable choice for adults with recurrent EWS or DSCRT. Further prospective studies aimed at this high risk population are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207