Outcome for young children newly diagnosed with ependymoma, treated with intensive induction chemotherapy followed by myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous stem cell rescue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of an intensive chemotherapy induction regimen followed by myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell rescue (AHSCR) in children with newly diagnosed ependymoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine children less than 10 years of age at diagnosis of ependymoma were enrolled on the "Head Start" studies. Twenty-four patients with localized disease received an induction regimen including five cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin, vincristine, etoposide cyclophosphamide, and high dose methotrexate for patients with metastatic disease). Following induction, individuals without evidence of disease proceeded to marrow-ablative chemotherapy (thiotepa, carboplatin, and etoposide) with AHSCR. RESULTS: The estimated 5-year event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) from diagnosis were 12% (+/-6%) and 38% (+/-10%), respectively. The toxic mortality amongst this group of 29 patients was 10.3%. Younger age (less than 18 months at diagnosis) was the only statistically significant prognostic factor. The estimated 5-year OS rate for the five patients with metastatic disease at presentation was 80% (+/-18%). Overall, radiation-free survival at 5 years from diagnosis was 8% (+/-5%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an intensive induction chemotherapy regimen including myeloablative chemotherapy followed by AHSCR in newly diagnosed young children with ependymoma is not superior to other previously reported chemotherapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".