Gliadel Wafers in the Treatment of Malignant Glioma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: What is the safety and efficacy of interstitial chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded polymers (Gliadel wafers: MGI Pharma, Bloomington, MN, U.S.A.) in the treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent malignant glioma (that is, glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, and anaplastic oligodendroglioma)? PERSPECTIVES: Malignant glioma is the most common type of primary brain tumour in adults. In general, efficacy of systemic therapy in this patient population has been disappointing, and novel treatment approaches are needed. Because several randomized controlled trials (RCTS) investigating the safety and efficacy of Gliadel are available, the Neuro-oncology Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care decided that a systematic review of the evidence was necessary. OUTCOMES: The outcomes of interest for this review were overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life. METHODOLOGY: Systematic searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted for relevant evidence. Fully-published reports of RCTS comparing treatment with Gliadel wafers to placebo or alternative treatment were selected for inclusion. Prospective cohort studies were also included. RESULTS: Two RCTS that compared Gliadel to placebo in patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma were obtained. Both RCTS reported a significant survival benefit for patients who received Gliadel as compared with patients in the control group. One RCT and one prospective cohort study were obtained that examined the role of Gliadel in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. The rct demonstrated a significant survival benefit for Gliadel only after adjustment for prognostic factors, and the prospective cohort study reported no survival benefit for Gliadel as compared with a historical control group. All three RCTS reported similar rates of adverse events in the treatment and control groups. The most frequently reported adverse events were convulsions, confusion, brain edema, infection, hemiparesis, aphasia, and visual field defects. CONCLUSIONS: Gliadel is an option for selected patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma where a near gross total resection is possible. No evidence is available comparing Gliadel with systemic therapy, and a decision to combine Gliadel with systemic therapy should be made for patients individually. The patient population that would benefit from Gliadel (age, histology, and performance status) is unclear; further investigation is needed. Gliadel is also an option for patients with surgically resectable recurrent malignant glioma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".