Temozolomide for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the role of temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma. Outcomes of interest include response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1980 through to 2005 using variations on the search terms: melanoma, clinical trial, random, temozolomide, temodal, and temodar. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting proceedings were searched from 1996 to 2005. Relevant articles and abstracts were selected and reviewed by two reviewers, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials. RESULTS: Two randomized phase III trials and three randomized phase II trials were located. In addition, 21 phase I or II trials investigating single-agent temozolomide, temozolomide plus interferon-alpha, and temozolomide plus thalidomide were reviewed. A direct comparison of temozolomide and dacarbazine demonstrated equal efficacy for response rates and overall survival; however, no significant difference was reported. A second phase III study comparing single-agent temozolomide with temozolomide combined with interferon-alpha indicated a significantly higher response rate for the combination treatment arm, but no difference in overall survival was noted. Further phase III studies are required to confirm whether there is a benefit associated with the combination of temozolomide and interferon-alpha or thalidomide. CONCLUSION: Our review of the available literature suggests that temozolomide demonstrates comparable activity to the current standard treatment, dacarbazine, with the additional benefit of being a convenient oral treatment that penetrates the blood-brain barrier.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".