MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase II trial of radiation and cetuximab followed by irinotecan/cetuximab for children with newly diagnosed diffuse pontine tumors and high-grade astrocytomas.

2013· article· en· W2486273864 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret E. Macy, Mark W. Kieran, Susan Chi, Kenneth J. Cohen, Tobey J. MacDonald, Amy Smith, Michael Etzl, Aru Narendran, Lia Gore, Jennifer Direnzo, Tanya Trippett, Nicholas K. Foreman, Ira J. Dunkel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCetuximabRashIrinotecanInternal medicineNeutropeniaGastroenterologyMucositisRadiation therapySurgeryOncologyColorectal cancerCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10030 Background: Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) and high-grade astrocytomas (HGA) have dismal prognoses. We previously demonstrated in a phase 1 study that cetuximab and irinotecan was a safe and tolerable regimen. Consequently, we initiated this 2-strata phase 2 trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of weekly cetuximab given with involved field external beam radiation therapy followed by 10 cycles of cetuximab and irinotecan for DIPG and HGA as determined by the 1-year progression-free survival. Methods: Eligible patients aged 3-21 years with newly diagnosed HGA or DIPG were enrolled to parallel strata. All patients received radiation therapy (5940 cGy) with concurrent cetuximab at 250mg/m2 IV weekly for 6 weeks. Following radiation, patients received cetuximab (250mg/m2 IV) weekly and irinotecan (16mg/m2/day IV) daily x 5 for two weeks every 21 days for 30 weeks. Tumor, serum, and CSF samples were collected for correlative studies. Sera collected at the onset of rash were analyzed for inflammatory and immune-related cytokines. Results: Forty-eight patients (27 DIPG, 21 HGA) were enrolled and 45 were treated (median age 8 years; range: 3–19). Toxicities were manageable; the most common adverse events were fatigue, gastrointestinal complaints, neutropenia, rash, headache, electrolyte abnormalities, elevated ALT/AST, and fever. Grade 3-4 events in ≥10% of patients were hypokalemia and lymphopenia. 4 patients experienced cetuximab-related hypersensitivity reactions (2 grade 3 reactions). The median PFS was 9.5 months (95% CI: 7.0-12.2) for HGA and 7.8 months (7.0-8.6) for DIPG with a 1-year PFS±SE of 24±10% and 25%±10% respectively. The median OS for HGA was 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.1-18.0) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.2) for DIPG. Biological correlative studies will be presented. Conclusions: Cetuximab and radiation therapy followed by cetuximab and irinotecan is well tolerated in children. Based on the 1-year PFS, this regimen may deserve further investigation in patients with DIPG. Biological correlative studies will delineate the mechanisms of the rash and possible implications for EGFR-targeted therapeutics in such patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01012609.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→