A phase II study of temozolomide vs. procarbazine in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized, multicentre, open-label, phase II study compared temozolomide (TMZ), an oral second-generation alkylating agent, and procarbazine (PCB) in 225 patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Primary objectives were to determine progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months and safety for TMZ and PCB in adult patients who failed conventional treatment. Secondary objectives were to assess overall survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL). TMZ was given orally at 200 mg/m(2)/day or 150 mg/m(2)/day (prior chemotherapy) for 5 days, repeated every 28 days. PCB was given orally at 150 mg/m(2)/day or 125 mg/m(2)/day (prior chemotherapy) for 28 days, repeated every 56 days. HRQL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 [+3]) and the Brain Cancer Module 20 (BCM20). The 6-month PFS rate for patients who received TMZ was 21%, which met the protocol objective. The 6-month PFS rate for those who received PCB was 8% (P = 0.008, for the comparison). Overall PFS significantly improved with TMZ, with a median PFS of 12.4 weeks in the TMZ group and 8.32 weeks in the PCB group (P = 0.0063). The 6-month overall survival rate for TMZ patients was 60% vs. 44% for PCB patients (P = 0.019). Freedom from disease progression was associated with maintenance of HRQL, regardless of treatment received. TMZ had an acceptable safety profile; most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".