AT-13 * R9802: PHASE III STUDY OF RADIATION THERAPY (RT) WITH OR WITHOUT PROCARBAZINE, CCNU, AND VINCRISTINE (PCV) IN LOW-GRADE QLIOMA: RESULTS BY HISTOLOGIC TYPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent results of R9802 (Buckner et al; J Clin Oncol 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr 2000)) demonstrated that PCV given with RT at the time of initial diagnosis prolongs both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients enrolled in the trial. Herein, we report the impact of treatment on PFS and OS based upon specific histologic type. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included age <40 years with subtotal resection or biopsy, age >40 with any extent of resection, and supratentorial grade ll oligodendroglioma (O), oligo-astrocytoma (OA), or astrocytoma (A). Patients were stratified by age, histology, Karnofsky Performance Status, and presence versus absence of contrast enhancement on the preoperative imaging study and randomized to RT alone (54 Gy in 30 fractions) or RT followed by 6 cycles of PCV chemotherapy. In an exploratory analysis, we used the log rank test to compare survival and progression free survival (PFS) distributions for each histologic type. RESULTS: 251 eligible patients were accrued from 1998 to 2002: 107 had O, 79 had OA, and 65 had A. In total, 67% have progressed and 55% have died. Median PFS (RT vs. RT + PCV) overall, O, OA, and A, respectively, are 4.0 vs 10.4 (p < 0.001); 6.0 vs not reached (NR) (p < 0.001); 3.0 vs 8.9 (p = 0.01); and 1.8 vs 3.7 (p = 0.06) years. Median survival times (RT vs. RT + PCV) overall, O, OA, and A, respectively, are 7.8 vs 13.3 (p = 0.002); 10.8 vs NR (p = 0.008); 5.9 vs 11.4 (p = 0.05); and 4.4 vs 7.7 (p = 0.31) years. CONCLUSIONS: For grade 2 glioma patients with less than gross total tumor resection or >40 years of age, PCV + RT prolongs both OS and PFS compared with RT alone. The observed benefit is most definitive for O and OA patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".