MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vincristine, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide (VAC) versus VAC/V plus irinotecan (VI) for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (IRRMS): A report from the Children’s Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee.

2014· article· en· W2240250507 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas S. Hawkins, James R. Anderson, Leo Mascarenhas, Geoffrey McCowage, David A. Rodeberg, Suzanne L. Wolden, David M. Parham, Lynn Million, Sarah S. Donaldson, Andrea Hayes‐Jordan, Kenneth L. Brown, Lisa A. Teot, Sheri L. Spunt, William H. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRhabdomyosarcomaClinical endpointVincristineCyclophosphamideSurgerySoft tissue sarcomaConfidence intervalSarcomaInternal medicineUrologyRandomized controlled trialChemotherapySoft tissuePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10004 Background: The long-term event free survival (EFS) for IRRMS is 65%. Since VI had significant activity in metastatic and recurrent RMS, we tested whether adding VI to VAC would improve EFS for IRRMS. Methods: Patients (pts) with alveolar (A)RMS or incompletely resected (Group III) embryonal (E)RMS arising in an unfavorable primary site (Stage 2/3), both without distant metastases, < 50 years, and adequate organ function were eligible to be randomized to 42 weeks of VAC (V=1.5 mg/m2, A=0.045 mg/kg, C=1.2 g/m2 every 3 weeks) vs VAC/VI (I=50 mg/m2/day x 5 days) intravenously; doses were adjusted for children < 3 years; radiation therapy (36-50.4 Gy) was started at week 4, with individualized local control for children < 2 years allowed. The primary study endpoint was EFS. The study was designed with 80% power (5% 1-sided alpha level) to detect an increase in 5 yr EFS from 65% to 76%, a relative risk of 0.64. Results: 481 pts were entered between 12/2006-12/2012, with 461 confirmed eligible. Clinical features included ERMS 53%, ARMS 43%; age < 1 year 6%, 1-9 years 62%, 10+ years 32%; Group III 85%; Stage 3 61%. The most common primary tumor sites were parameningeal (44%), extremity (13%), and bladder/prostate (13%). With median follow up of 2.46 years in surviving pts, EFS and overall survival (OS) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were similar overall and by histologic subtypes (Table). Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were less common with VAC/VI, particularly after the first 15 weeks of therapy, while diarrhea was more common with VAC/VI. Conclusions: The addition of VI to VAC did not significantly improve EFS or OS compared to VAC alone for IRRMS. The lower rate of hematologic toxicity and cumulative C dose with VAC/VI (8.4 g/m2 vs 16.8 g/m2) support the use of VAC/VI as the standard arm in future IRRMS trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00354835. Treatment n 2-year EFS (95% CI) 2-year OS (95% CI) VAC 227 64% (56%, 70%) 84% (78%, 89%) VAC/VI 234 64% (56%, 70%) 86% (80%, 90%) ERMS: VAC 118 67% (56%, 76%) 86% (76%, 92%) ERMS: VAC/VI 128 68% (58%, 76%) 89% (81%, 93%) ARMS: VAC 102 58% (48%, 69%) 81% (71%, 88%) ARMS: VAC/VI 95 57% (45%, 67%) 83% (72%, 90%)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207