MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346226649 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov206.29

ATCT-29INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF REIRRADIATION OR SYSTEMIC THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH GBM AFTER TUMOR PROGRESSION: A SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE NRG ONCOLOGY/RTOG 0525

2015· article· en· W2346226649 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyin Shi, Molly Scannell Bryan, Mark R. Gilbert, Minesh P. Mehta, Deborah T. Blumenthal, Paul D. Brown, Egils Valeinis, Kirsten Hopkins, Luís Souhami, David W. Andrews, Tzahala Tzuk-Shina, Steve Howard, Emad Youssef, N. Lessard, James J. Dignam, Maria Werner‐Wasik

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de QuébecConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystemic therapyOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding which salvage treatment approach may be of most benefit for glioblastoma patients who progress following standard chemo-radiation treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis of RTOG 0525 investigated the effect of reirradiation or systemic treatment in patients with tumor progression. Survival time was calculated from date of progression. Survival from first progression was estimated and compared between patients receiving neither radiation or systemic therapy, systemic therapy alone, or any radiation treatment. Patient characteristics were compared between groups and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare hazard of death controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 637 patients who progressed with recorded information on their non-protocol therapy, excluding those who died less than half a month after progression, were analyzed. 267 patients (42%) received neither radiation or systemic treatment at progression. 88 patients (14%) received some form of radiation treatment. 282 patients (44%) received systemic treatment only. Patients who received no treatment had a median survival (MS) of 4.8 months, lower than radiation treatment (11.3 months), or systemic therapy (10.6 months). However, there was no survival difference between patients who received systemic therapy and those who received radiotherapy (p = 0.3808). Cox models, controlling for potential confounders, demonstrate no difference in hazard of death (1.13, 95% CI 0.8-1.5) between treatment arms. Patients receiving neither therapy had a statistically significant increased hazard of death (2.45, 95% CI: 1.9-3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage treatments after GBM tumor progression were highly variable. Patients who received radiation with or without systemic therapy had a similar MS as those receiving systemic therapy only. Either treatment was statistically significantly better than no treatment. However, this may be the result of poorer functional status of untreated patients. SUPPORT: This project was supported by grants U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822 and U10CA37422 from the NCI and Merck.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207