A High-Dose Busulfan-Thiotepa Combination Followed by Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation in Childhood Recurrent Ependymoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixteen children with refractory or relapsed ependymoma were entered in a phase-II study of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT). The conditioning regimen consisted of busulfan 150 mg/m2/day for 4 days and thiotepa 300 mg/m2/day for the 3 following days. All patients had previously been treated by surgery and conventional chemotherapy. Eight of them had also received irradiation at doses ranging from 45 to 55 Gy at the tumor site. At the time of transplantation, 9 patients were in first relapse, 5 in second relapse and 2 in third relapse or more; all had measurable disease; 15 patients were evaluable for response. No radiologic response > 50% was observed. Stable disease and progressive disease were documented in 10 and 5 cases, respectively. The duration of response to this treatment, which lasted for a median time of 7 months (range: 5-8 months), was only evaluable in 5 patients who did not receive further treatment after ABMT. To date, there are 3 disease-free survivors at 15, 25 and 27 months all of whom were treated with second complete surgical resection and local radiotherapy (55 Gy). Toxicity was severe, mainly digestive and cutaneous, and 1 toxicity-related death occurred. Unlike medulloblastomas, ependymomas do not appear to be sensitive to this combination therapy. New therapeutic approaches are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".