Topotecan Is Active Against Wilms’ Tumor: Results of a Multi-Institutional Phase II Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the activity and safety of topotecan in pediatric patients with recurrent Wilms' tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with favorable histology Wilms' tumor (FHWT) and recurrence after at least one salvage chemotherapy regimen or with anaplastic histology Wilms' tumor (AHWT) in first or subsequent recurrence were eligible. Patients were stratified according to histology, with statistical considerations based on the FHWT stratum. Topotecan was administered intravenously over 30 minutes for 5 days on 2 consecutive weeks. Treatment dosages were adjusted to achieve a target area under the curve (AUC) of 80 +/- 10 ng/mL*h. Tumor responses were measured after two cycles of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (26 patients with FHWT) were enrolled and received a total of 94 cycles of topotecan (range, one to six cycles). The median topotecan dosage required to achieve the target AUC was 1.8 mg/m2 (range, 0.7 to 3.2 mg/m2). Of 25 assessable patients with FHWT, 12 had partial response (PR), six had stable disease (SD), and seven had progressive disease (PD), for an overall response rate of 48% (95% CI, 27.8% to 68.7%). Of 11 assessable patients with AHWT, two had PR, one had SD, and eight had PD. The main toxicities were grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (median duration, 13 days) and thrombocytopenia (median duration, 7.5 days). CONCLUSION: Topotecan administered on a protracted schedule is active against recurrent FHWT. Inclusion of topotecan in front-line clinical trials for patients with recurrent Wilms' tumor should be considered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".