Is more better? The impact of extended adjuvant temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of EORTC and NRG Oncology/RTOG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation with concurrent and adjuvant (6 cycles) temozolomide (TMZ) is the established standard of postsurgical care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This regimen has been adopted with variations, including extending TMZ beyond 6 cycles. The optimal duration of maintenance therapy remains controversial. METHODS: We performed pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials for newly diagnosed GBM. All patients who were progression free 28 days after cycle 6 were included. The decision to continue TMZ was per local practice and standards, and at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients were grouped into those treated with 6 cycles and those who continued beyond 6 cycles. Progression-free and overall survival were compared, adjusted by age, performance status, resection extent, and MGMT methylation. RESULTS: A total of 2214 GBM patients were included in the 4 trials. Of these, 624 qualified for analysis 291 continued maintenance TMZ until progression or up to 12 cycles, while 333 discontinued TMZ after 6 cycles. Adjusted for prognostic factors, treatment with more than 6 cycles of TMZ was associated with a somewhat improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.65-0.98], P = .03), in particular for patients with methylated MGMT (n = 342, HR 0.65 [0.50-0.85], P < .01). However, overall survival was not affected by the number of TMZ cycles (HR = 0.92 [0.71-1.19], P = .52), including the MGMT methylated subgroup (HR = 0.89 [0.63-1.26], P = .51). CONCLUSIONS: Continuing TMZ beyond 6 cycles was not shown to increase overall survival for newly diagnosed GBM.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".