Impact of standard care on elderly glioblastoma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. Uncertainty persists about the survival advantage of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) plus radiotherapy (RT) in elderly patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). We compared the clinical outcome of unselected elderly GBM patients treated with 4 adjuvant treatment modalities, including the Stupp protocol. Methods. From 2010 to 2014, retrospective chart review was performed on 171 GBM patients aged ≥55 who received either concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) with standard 60 Gy/30 (SRT); CCRT with hypofractionated 40 Gy/15 (HRT); HRT alone; or TMZ alone. Stratification is by age (55–69, ≥70), KPS (<70, ≥70), and resection status (biopsy, resection). Results. Out of 171 patients identified, 128(75%) had surgical resection, median age was 66(55–83), and median overall survival (mOS) 11.4mo. Majority (109/171) were treated according to the Stupp protocol (CCRT-SRT), and 106/171 received post-CCRT adjuvant TMZ (median of 3 cycles). In our population, age <70yo was a significant prognostic factor (mOS of patients aged 55–69 vs ≥70 yo = 13.3 vs 6.6 mo; P = .001). However, among the population receiving the Stupp regimen, there was no difference in survival between patients aged 55–69 and those ≥70 (respectively, 14.4 vs 13.2 mo; P = .798). Patients ≥70 yo had similar survival when treated with CCRT-HRT and CCRT-SRT (P = .248), although numbers were small. Conclusions. Our data suggests that, despite having a worse global prognostic than their younger counterparts, GBM patients ≥70yo with a good performance status could be treated according to the Stupp protocol with similar survival. Theses results need prospective confirmation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".