Treatment of Retinoblastoma Patients With Chemoreduction Plus Local Therapy: Experience of the AC Camargo Hospital, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy of conservative management of intraocular retinoblastoma with chemoreduction combined with local therapy with or without plaque radiation in the preservation of the eye, and avoidance of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) (success rate). From 1995 to 2000, 84 newly diagnosed patients with intraocular retinoblastoma were admitted to the Pediatric Department of the Hospital do Cancer A.C. Camargo, São Paulo, Brazil. All children were treated with 2 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy (carboplatin, vincristine, and etoposide) plus local therapy (cryotherapy, laser photocoagulation, and thermotherapy), or plaque radiation therapy during and/or after the chemotherapy. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare means of quantitative variables. The chi test or the Fisher exact test were employed to verify the association between the outcome and the independent variables. For all tests alpha=5% was adopted. Success rate was higher for patients with bilateral tumors (54%) than for children with unilateral tumors (19%) (P=0.003). For patients with Reese-Ellsworth stages I, II, and III, no statistically significant differences in the success rates were noted in the group of unilateral (50%) and bilateral tumors (79.1%) (P=0.179). Among children with Reese-Ellsworth stages IV and V, the success rate was significantly higher for patients with bilateral tumors (40.7%) than for those with unilateral (0%) (P=0.012). Chemoreduction combined with local therapy, with or without plaque radiotherapy, is efficacious in avoiding enucleation and the use of external beam radiation therapy for children with intraocular retinoblastoma.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".