MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2420857723 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox107

Contemporary survival endpoints: an International Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma Registry study

2017· letter· en· W2420857723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tabitha Cooney, Adam Lane, Ute Bartels, Éric Bouffet, Stewart Goldman, Sarah Leary, Nicholas K. Foreman, Roger J. Packer, Alberto Broniscer, Jane E. Minturn, Chie‐Schin Shih, Murali Chintagumpala, Tim Hassall, Nicholas G. Gottardo, Hetal Dholaria, Lindsey M. Hoffman, Brooklyn Chaney, Joshua Baugh, Renee Doughman, James L. Leach, Blaise V. Jones, Maryam Fouladi, Katherine E. Warren, Michelle Monje

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren's National HospitalSeattle Children's Research InstituteSt. Jude Children's Research HospitalMorgan Adams FoundationChildren's Hospital ColoradoNational Cancer InstituteCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical CenterTexas Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia
KeywordsMedicineGliomaCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) biology has rapidly evolved in recent years. Promising agents such as panobinostat, with demonstrated disease-specific preclinical efficacy, are currently in clinical trials. Determination of clinical benefit by measuring improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) requires well-defined historical controls. However, many previous studies evaluating these endpoints included small numbers of patients, were single institution studies, and were not limited to DIPG but rather included all brainstem tumors.1–4 The most recent study investigating median post-progression survival (PPS) time (ie, time from initial tumor progression to death) in DIPG patients was published over 20 years ago.5 We evaluated survival endpoints in patients registered in the International DIPG registry (IDIPGR). Diagnoses of DIPG (defined as tumors with a pontine epicenter and diffuse involvement of at least two thirds of the pons) in patients were made by central radiological review between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2014. Radiographic progression was determined by central review. PFS was defined as time from date of diagnosis to date of radiographic progression or death from any cause. Time to progression (TTP) was time from date of diagnosis to date of radiographic progression; death was censored. OS was time from date of diagnosis until date of death or censorship. PPS was measured for each patient as OS minus PFS, and for each patient with recorded progression as OS minus TTP. Median and percent survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. We identified 372 patients, 235 (63.2%) of whom had documented radiographic progression. Median age at diagnosis was 6.3 years (range 4.6–9.1 y), 55% were female. Caucasian represented the largest portion of racial category (42.7%), followed by other (11.3%), African (9.9%), and Asian (2.4%). Two hundred nineteen patients (58.9%) had symptom duration of less than 6 weeks at diagnosis. Median OS was 11.2 months, consistent with prior reports (Table 1). We found no statistically significant survival differences by age, gender, or racial category. Survival endpoints Survival endpoints The IDIPGR, launched in 2012, has enrolled 722 patients to date. By gathering data from larger numbers of patients and including international patient data, outcome studies have larger statistical power and may be more representative of patient outcomes.6 Median PPS (OS − TTP) was 4.8 months for the 235 patients with recorded radiographic progression prior to death. For the 137 patients without documented progression, their respective PPS (OS − PFS) measured 0. Median PPS (OS − PFS) as measured for the entire cohort of 372 patients, then, was 2.3 months (Table 1). It is important to understand how differences in survival definition affected results. This study has several limitations. Although patient enrollment into the IDIPGR requires fulfillment of predefined DIPG diagnostic criteria, clinical-radiographic diagnoses remain vulnerable to subjectivity. A small percentage, 4.6%, of patients had symptom duration of more than 24 weeks prior to diagnosis, begging the question of biologic diversity among registry patients. Clinical and radiographic definitions of progression for patients with DIPG are not standardized and treatment-related changes may complicate interpretation. This study defines PFS and OS, and is the first to describe post-progression survival in a large cohort of children with DIPG to establish a more reliable historical comparison group for clinical trials. To design trials efficiently and effectively, incorporating the appropriate endpoints is imperative. We gratefully acknowledge all patients and their families who have supported and contributed to the International DIPG Registry. Supporting foundations include: the Cure Starts Now Foundation, Hope for Caroline Foundation, Julian Boivin Courage for Cures Foundation, Abbie’s Army, Michael Mosier Defeat DIPG Foundation, Reflections of Grace Foundation, the Cure Starts Now Australia, Brooke Healey Foundation, Soar With Grace Foundation, Jeffrey Thomas Hayden Foundation, Cure Brain Cancer Foundation, the Jones Family Foundation, Musella Foundation, Pray, Hope Believe Foundation, Smiles for Sophie Foundation, Bennys World, Love Chloe Foundation, Aidens Avengers, a Cure from Caleb Society, the Operation Grace White Foundation, Ryans Hope, Wayland Villars DIPG Foundation, American Childhood Cancer Organization, Juliana Rose Donnelly Trust, Sheila Jones & Friends, the Ellie Kavalieros DIPG Research Fund, Voices Against Brain Cancer, the DIPG Collaborative. We also acknowledge the support of the Child Health Research Institute, Stanford University. The authors report no conflict of interest.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations158
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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