Temozolomide plus radiotherapy for glioblastoma in a Canadian province: Efficacy versus effectiveness and the impact of O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase promoter methylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide has been the standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in adults since the pivotal trial by Roger Stupp and colleagues. The effectiveness of this regimen has not been evaluated in Canada. Additionally, the impact of O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation on patient survival has not been confirmed. Hence, survival outcomes and MGMT predictive value were compared for the patients in Alberta versus the Stupp trial population. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 215 adult glioblastoma patients who started radiotherapy and temozolomide between January 2007 and December 2010 at the Cross Cancer Institute (Edmonton, Alberta) or the Tom Baker Cancer Centre (Calgary, Alberta). RESULTS: In the Alberta population, median overall survival was 14.3 months (vs. 14.6 months in trial, p = NS) and median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (vs. 6.9 months in trial, p = NS). However, unlike the trial, the Alberta MGMT subgroup analysis for overall survival was not statistically significant, despite a hazard ratio of 0.65 in favor of the methylated group. More Alberta patients received corticosteroids (p < 0.0001) and fewer underwent complete resection (p = 0.0001) or a postprogression second surgery (p = 0.01) than the Stupp population, but characteristics were otherwise similar. CONCLUSION: Current practice in Alberta enables patients to achieve overall and progression-free survival similar to the clinical trial. Further follow-up is required to confirm the predictive value of the MGMT assay. Until that is clarified or better treatments are developed, it is reasonable to continue offering this treatment regimen to patients regardless of MGMT methylation status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".