Upfront bevacizumab may extend survival for glioblastoma patients who do not receive second-line therapy: an exploratory analysis of AVAglio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this post-hoc, exploratory analysis, we examined outcomes for patients enrolled in the AVAglio trial of front-line bevacizumab or placebo plus radiotherapy/temozolomide who received only a single line of therapy. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received protocol-defined treatment until progressive disease (PD). Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). After confirmed PD, patients were treated at the investigators' discretion. PFS/OS were assessed in patients with a PFS event who did not receive post-PD therapy (Group 1) and patients with a PFS event who received post-PD therapy plus patients who did not have a PFS event at the final data cutoff (Group 2). Kaplan-Meier methodology was used. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for known prognostic variables was generated. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced. In patients with a PFS event who did not receive post-PD therapy (Group 1; n = 225 [24.4% of the intent-to-treat population]), the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy/temozolomide resulted in a 3.6-month extension in both median PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, P = .0016) and median OS (HR: 0.67, P = .0102). Multivariate analyses supported this OS benefit (HR: 0.66). In the remaining patients (Group 2; n = 696), a 5.2-month PFS extension was observed in bevacizumab-treated patients (HR: 0.61, P < .0001); OS was comparable between the treatment arms (HR: 0.88, P = .1502). No significant differences in safety were observed between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to standard glioblastoma treatment prolongs PFS and OS for patients with PD who receive only one line of therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".