Response to Paclitaxel, Topotecan, and Topotecan-Cyclophosphamide in Children With Untreated Disseminated Neuroblastoma Treated in an Upfront Phase II Investigational Window: A Pediatric Oncology Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most children older than 1 year of age with metastatic neuroblastoma (NB) die despite intensive chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. The Pediatric Oncology Group conducted a study of paclitaxel, topotecan, and topotecan-cyclophosphamide (topo-cyclo) in newly diagnosed children with stage IV NB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 102 patients enrolled between September 1993 and October 1995; two of them were later shown to be ineligible. Of the remaining 100 patients, the first cohort of 33 patients received paclitaxel 350 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 24 hours every 14 to 21 days; the next 33 patients received topotecan 2 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days IV every 21 days; a third cohort of 34 patients were treated with IV cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m(2) followed by topotecan 0.75 mg/m(2) each day for 5 days every 21 days. Patients were re-evaluated after two courses and then treated with intensive induction therapy and bone marrow transplantation. RESULTS: Objective responses (complete response + partial response + mixed response) were documented in 67% of children who received topotecan, 76% after topo-cyclo, and 25% after paclitaxel. Four patients had grade 3 to 4 allergic reactions to paclitaxel; most patients developed grade 3 to 4 marrow suppression after topotecan or topo-cyclo. Neither disease-free survival nor overall survival differed significantly between children who received a phase II agent and those who did not. The 6-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates for all 100 children were 18% +/- 5% and 26% +/- 5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Topotecan and topo-cyclo are active in children with NB, are well tolerated, and should be evaluated further in combination regimens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".