Feasibility and efficacy of repeated chemotherapy for progressive pediatric low‐grade gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is widely accepted as first-line therapy for pediatric low-grade gliomas (LGG). Treatment modalities for further progression are not clearly established. The aim of the study was to determine the feasibility and long-term outcome of repeated chemotherapy for children with recurrent LGG. METHODS: The study group consisted of patients who received a second line of chemotherapy at progression of their LGG. We compared toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with chemotherapy at the time of initial diagnosis and patients who received another treatment with chemotherapy at further progression. RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2009, 118 patients received chemotherapy as primary treatment for LGG, 38 had repeated chemotherapy at further progression. Chemotherapy was tolerated extremely well. Ninety-two percent of patients completed their second line protocol and toxicity was comparable between initial and second line chemotherapy. Five-year OS and PFS were 86 ± 6% and 37 ± 8%, respectively, which were similar to first-line chemotherapy (P = 0.14). Repeated chemotherapy courses were not associated with worsening of visual, neuroendocrine, or other long-term organ sequelae. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates high feasibility and low mortality of repeated chemotherapy treatment for progressive LGG. The chronic nature of LGG concerning tumor progression justifies consideration of non-toxic second-line treatment regimens at the time of recurrence. Prospective studies focusing on toxicity and long-term outcome are needed to substantiate this approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".