Initial treatment patterns over time for anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors are rare neoplasms with no standard approach to treatment. We sought to determine patterns of treatment delivered over time and identify clinical correlates of specific strategies using an international retrospective cohort of 1013 patients diagnosed from 1981-2007. Prior to 1990, most patients received radiotherapy (RT) alone as initial postoperative treatment. After 1990, approximately 50% of patients received both RT and chemotherapy (CT) sequentially and/or concurrently. Treatment with RT alone became significantly less common (67% in 1980-1984 vs 5% in 2005-2007, P < .0001). CT alone was more frequently administered in later years (0% in 1980-1984 vs 38% in 2005-2007; P < .0001), especially in patients with 1p19q codeleted tumors (57% of codeleted vs 4% with no deletion in 2005-2007; P < .0001). Temozolomide replaced the combination of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) among patients who received CT alone or with RT (87% vs 2% in 2005-2007). In the most recent time period, patients with 1p19q codeleted tumors were significantly more likely to receive CT alone (with temozolomide), whereas RT with temozolomide was a significantly more common treatment strategy than either CT or RT alone in cases with no deletion (P < .0001). In a multivariate polytomous logistic regression model, the following were significantly associated with type of treatment delivered: date (5-year interval) of diagnosis (P < .0001), 1p19q codeletion (P < .0001), pure anaplastic oligodendroglioma histology (P < .01), and frontal lobe predominance (P < .05). Limited level 1 evidence is currently available to guide treatment decisions, and ongoing phase III trials will be critical to understanding the optimal therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".