3D Conformal Radiotherapy and Cisplatin for Recurrent Malignant Glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose of 3D conformal radiotherapy in combination with Cisplatin for patients with recurrent malignant gliomas. METHODS: From 1999-2003, nine patients with recurrent malignant glioma received fractionated radiotherapy and Cisplatin (20 mg/m2/d IV on days 1-5) in a Phase I radiation dose escalation trial. Three sequential dose levels were evaluated: 25 Gy, 30 Gy, and 35 Gy, using 5 Gy fractions. All patients received prior external beam radiation (median dose 59.4 (20-60) Gy) and five patients received prior chemotherapy. RESULTS: Six male and three female patients were enrolled with a median age of 52 years, and a median Karnofsky performance status score of 70. The median re-irradiated tumor volume was 18.9 (0.1-78.5) cm3 and the median follow-up was 8.8 (3.2-31.2) months. One patient (30 Gy/ 6 fractions) experienced medically reversible acute grade 3 toxicity. A second patient (35 Gy/ 7 fractions) experienced acute grade 2 toxicity and histology showed tumor and radiation effect. A third patient (25 Gy/ 5 fractions) experienced late grade 3 toxicity from radiation necrosis. The radiological responses consisted of complete response (1 patient), partial response (1 patient), and stable disease (2 patients). The median overall survival was 8.8 months (95% CI 8.0-9.9), and the median disease free interval was 2.0 months (95% CI 1.4-4.4). Seven patients received chemotherapy following re-irradiation and Cisplatin. CONCLUSION: The maximum tolerated dose of 3D conformal fractionated radiotherapy was 30 Gy in 6 fractions with low dose Cisplatin, which was well tolerated in terms of acute toxicity for our patient population. This regimen demonstrated only modest efficacy in the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma. Combinations of conformal re-irradiation and other systemic agents may merit investigation. Currently our recommended dose is 30 Gy in 6 fractions for selected 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".