Treatment of Wilms tumor relapsing after initial treatment with vincristine and actinomycin D: A report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: NWTS-5 was a multi-institutional clinical trial for patients less than 16 years of age at diagnosis with specific renal neoplasms who were diagnosed between August 1, 1995 and May 31, 2002. A uniform approach to the treatment of patients with relapse was employed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients who relapsed after immediate nephrectomy (stages I and II), initial chemotherapy with vincristine (VCR) and actinomycin D and no radiation therapy were registered on stratum B of the NWTS-5 relapse protocol. Four patients were not evaluable: one due to insufficient data and three due to major protocol violations. Among the 68 remaining patients, one who was 19 years of age at initial diagnosis of Wilms tumor, five with bilateral Wilms tumor at diagnosis, three who developed a contralateral relapse, and one with persistent disease were not included in this analysis. Relapse treatment included surgical excision, when feasible, radiation therapy and alternating courses of VCR, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide and etoposide and cyclophosphamide. RESULTS: The outcomes of 58 patients were analyzed. The lung was the only site of relapse for 31 patients. Event-free survival 4 years after relapse was 71.1% and 4-year overall survival was 81.8% for all patients and were 67.8 and 81.0% for those who relapsed only to their lungs. The most frequent toxicities were hematological. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that a significant proportion of children with Wilms tumor who relapse after initial treatment with VCR and actinomycin D can be successfully re-treated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".