Treatment of Wilms tumor relapsing after initial treatment with vincristine, actinomycin D, and doxorubicin. A report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the use of alternating cycles of cyclophosphamide/etoposide and carboplatin/etoposide in children entered on National Wilms Tumor Study (NWTS)-5 who were diagnosed between August 1, 1995 and May 31, 2002 and who relapsed after chemotherapy with vincristine, actinomycin D, and doxorubicin (VAD) and radiation therapy (DD-4A). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred three patients who relapsed or had progressive disease after initial VAD chemotherapy and radiation therapy were registered on stratum C of the NWTS-5 Relapse protocol. Twelve patients were not evaluable: five due to insufficient data, six due to major protocol violations, and one for refusal of therapy. Among the 91 remaining patients, 14 with stage V Wilms tumor (WT), 1 with contralateral relapse, and 16 who did not achieve a complete response (CR) to the initial three-drug chemotherapy were not included in this analysis. Relapse treatment included alternating courses of the drug pairs cyclophosphamide/etoposide and carboplatin/etoposide, surgery, and radiation therapy. RESULTS: The outcomes of 60 patients were analyzed. The lung was the only site of relapse for 33 patients; other sites of relapse included the operative bed, the abdomen, and liver. Four-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 42.3 and 48.0% respectively for all patients and were 48.9 and 52.8% for those who relapsed in the lungs only. Thrombocytopenia was the most frequent toxicity. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that approximately one-half of children with unilateral WT who relapse after initial treatment with VAD and radiation therapy can be successfully retreated.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".