Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP‐16: A Children's Oncology Group phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis for children with brain stem glioma remains grim. Based on studies suggesting efficacy of vincristine and oral VP-16, The Pediatric Oncology Group (POG, now part of the Children's Oncology Group) conducted a study using these agents in combination with standard external beam radiation for children with newly diagnosed brain stem glioma. METHODS: Children were eligible for the study if they 3-21 years of age, had MRI-evidence of a diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, and had neurologic deficits of <6 months duration. Patients received local radiotherapy to a dosage of 54 Gy. Chemotherapy consisted of two 28-day cycles of vincristine, 1.5 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15 and oral VP-16, 50 mg/m(2), days 1-21, starting concurrent with radiation, and continuing for ten cycles following radiation. RESULTS: Of the 31 children enrolled, 30 were eligible and evaluable for survival and toxicity. Their median age was 8 years (range 3-14 years). Seven patients (23%) had a partial response following radiation, 18 (60%) had stable disease, 2 (7%) had progressive disease, and response in 3 patients (10%) was not measured. All 30 children have died. Overall survival at 1 year was 27 +/- 7% and at 2 years, 3 +/- 2%. The median survival was 9 months (range 3-36 months). Hematologic toxicity was significant; other toxicities included constipation, mucositis, emesis, and infection. CONCLUSION: The addition of vincristine and oral VP-16 to standard external beam radiation causes moderate toxicity and does not improve survival of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".