MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053550046 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov061.6

AT-07 * SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT OF ATRT PATIENTS WITHOUT ADJUVANT RADIATION: A MULTI INSTITUTIONAL CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

2015· article· en· W2053550046 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donggyun Ku, Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Chris Fryer, Juliette Hukin, Douglas Strother, Annie Huang, E. Bouffet

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjuvantAdjuvant radiotherapyMedicineRadiation therapyMedical physicsOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While radiation has been included in most of the recent multimodality strategies to treat ATRT patients, concerns of significant neurocognitive deficit in very young children has led some pediatric neurooncologists to avoid the use of systematic adjuvant radiation. We present here a multiinstitutional Canadian experience. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2013, 26 patients from 3 Canadian centers (Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver), diagnosed with ATRT were treated with high dose chemotherapy strategy with the intent to delay or avoid radiation. There were 16 females and 10 males. The median age at diagnosis was 21.2 months (4.2-110.2). Fourteen patients had a supratentorial tumor and 8 were metastatic at diagnosis (1M1, 5M2, 1M2/M3, 1 M2/MRT). Fifteen achieved gross total resection (3 underwent second look surgery). Ten patients received additional triple IT chemotherapy. Five of the 16 patients tested had evidence of INI1 germline mutation. Conditioning regimen for consolidation consisted in 1 cycle of (Carbo/VP16/Thiotepa) in 6 patients, 3 cycles of (Carbo/Thiotepa) in 19 and 4 cycles of (CPM/CDDP/VP16) in 1 patient. Ten patient received maintenance therapy with Tamoxifen and Cis retinoic acid following high dose chemotherapy. Only 6/26 (23%) patients received radiation, all in an adjuvant setting. Radiation consisted in focal radiation in 4 and craniospinal irradiation in 2 patients. Eleven patients relapsed. Ten patients died of disease, one of treatment related toxicity. At a median time of 53.8 months, 15 patients (57.6%) are alive with 11 (73.3%) of them who did not received radiation. CONCLUSION: Although there is still a lack of molecular or genetic marker that allows identification of patients with ATRT who can be spared upfront radiation, our experience describes an interesting survival rate for patients with ATRT in the absence of adjuvant radiation. Upcoming molecular classification in ATRT should help delineating indication of radiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→