Phase 2 study of temozolomide in children and adolescents with recurrent central nervous system tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective chemotherapy is lacking for most types of central nervous system (CNS) tumors in children. Temozolomide, an agent with activity against adult brain tumors, was investigated in children and adolescents with recurrent CNS tumors. METHODS: Temozolomide was administered orally as monthly 5-day courses at doses of 200 mg/m(2)/d (patients with no prior craniospinal irradiation [CSI]) or 180 mg/m(2)/d (prior CSI). Patients with a complete (CR) or partial (PR) response or stable disease (SD) could continue temozolomide for up to 12 cycles. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 122 patients, including 113 with CNS tumors. Median age was 11 years (range, 1-23 years). Among 104 evaluable patients with CNS tumors, 5 PRs and 1 CR were observed. PRs occurred in 1 of 23 evaluable patients with high-grade astrocytoma, 1 of 21 with low-grade astrocytoma, and 3 of 25 with medulloblastoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET). The CR occurred in an additional patient with medulloblastoma/PNET. No responses were observed in patients with ependymoma, brain-stem glioma, or other CNS tumors. Notably, 41% of patients with low-grade astrocytoma had SD through 12 courses. The most frequent toxicities were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (19%) and thrombocytopenia (25%); nonhematologic toxicity was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall objective responses were limited, further exploration of temozolomide may be warranted in children with medulloblastoma and other PNETs, or in patients with low-grade astrocytoma, perhaps in a setting of less pretreatment than the patients in the current study, or in the context of multiagent therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".