Phase II Trial of Bevacizumab and Irinotecan in Recurrent Malignant Glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recurrent grade III-IV gliomas have a dismal prognosis with minimal improvements in survival seen following currently available salvage therapy. This study was conducted to determine if the combination of a novel antiangiogenic therapy, bevacizumab, and a cytotoxic agent, irinotecan, is safe and effective for patients with recurrent grade III-IV glioma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in adults with recurrent grade III-IV glioma. Patients with evidence of intracranial hemorrhage on initial brain magnetic resonance imaging were excluded. Patients were scheduled to receive bevacizumab and irinotecan i.v. every 2 weeks of a 6-week cycle. Bevacizumab was administered at 10 mg/kg. The dose of irinotecan was determined based on antiepileptic use: patients taking enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs received 340 mg/m(2), whereas patients not taking enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs received 125 mg/m(2). Toxicity and response were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were assessed (23 with grade IV glioma and 9 with grade III glioma). Radiographic responses were noted in 63% (20 of 32) of patients (14 of 23 grade IV patients and 6 of 9 grade III patients). The median progression-free survival was 23 weeks for all patients (95% confidence interval, 15-30 weeks; 20 weeks for grade IV patients and 30 weeks for grade III patients). The 6-month progression-free survival probability was 38% and the 6-month overall survival probability was 72%. No central nervous system hemorrhages occurred, but three patients developed deep venous thromboses or pulmonary emboli, and one patient had an arterial ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bevacizumab and irinotecan is an active regimen for recurrent grade III-IV glioma with acceptable toxicity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".