Inhaled Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor for First Pulmonary Recurrence of Osteosarcoma: Effects on Disease-Free Survival and Immunomodulation. A Report From the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Osteosarcoma most commonly recurs in the lung. Based on preliminary data on the antitumor effects of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in animal models, and promising phase I trials, we embarked on a feasibility study of inhaled GM-CSF in patients with first isolated pulmonary recurrence of osteosarcoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-three eligible patients received inhaled GM-CSF at doses from 250 to 1,750 microg twice daily on alternate weeks. Following two cycles, patients underwent thoracotomy to resect tumor and analyze pulmonary nodules for expression of Fas/Fas ligand (Fas/FasL), and the presence of dendritic cells by immunostaining for CD1a, clusterin, and S100. Following surgery, patients received 12 additional cycles of therapy on alternating weeks or until progression. Event-free survival and survival, and feasibility of therapy delivery were evaluated. RESULTS: Dose escalation to 1,750 microg twice daily was feasible with no dose-limiting toxicity. Mean scores for Fas/FasL in nodules from patients with bilateral recurrence who underwent unilateral thoracotomy pretreatment (using a scoring system of 0-3) were 1.3 and 0.88, respectively, compared with 0.78 and 0.62 in nodules resected following two cycles of therapy. Only 11 of 30 nodules postinhalation were positive for CD1a, 4 of 30 for S100, and 6 of 30 for clusterin. Event-free and overall survival at 3 years were 7.8% and 35.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalation of GM-CSF at doses from 250 to 1,750 microg twice daily on alternate weeks was feasible with low toxicity. However, no detectable immunostimulatory effect in pulmonary metastases or improved outcome postrelapse was seen.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".