Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in molecularly characterized (1p loss) low-grade glioma: A randomized phase III intergroup study by the EORTC/NCIC-CTG/TROG/MRC-CTU (EORTC 22033-26033).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2007 Background: Outcome of low-grade glioma (LGG) is highly variable. We investigated whether primary chemotherapy in comparison to standard radiotherapy (RT) prolongs progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and whether prognostic molecular factors could be defined. Methods: Progressive, symptomatic or high-risk patients with a LGG requiring treatment other than surgery were randomized (after stratification for 1p-status) to either conformal RT (50.4 Gy/28 fractions) or dose-dense temozolomide [TMZ] (75 mg/m² daily x 21 days, q28 days, max. 12 cycles). Primary endpoint was PFS, secondary analyses included OS and impact of 1p status. Results: 477 patients were randomized (2005-2012, median FU 45.5 months). Analysis was performed after 246 progression events. Hematological toxicity ≥ grade 3 was observed in 9.4% of TMZ patients. PFS was not significantly different, median OS not reached. 1p deletion was a positive prognostic factor irrespective of treatment (p-value stratified by treatment (PFS: 0.0003;HR=0.59 95% CI(0.45-0.78)/OS: 0.002;HR=0.49 95% CI (0.32-0.77)). Conclusions: First-line treatment with TMZ compared to RT did not improve PFS in high-risk LGG patients. Although interaction test was not significant, there was a trend for inferior PFS in patients treated by TMZ with 1p intact, while OS may be better when 1p-deleted patients receive TMZ upfront. Survival analysis requires further maturation of the data. Clinical trial information: EudraCT number 2004-002714-11. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".