Phase II Weekly Vinblastine for Chemotherapy-Naïve Children With Progressive Low-Grade Glioma: A Canadian Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
intravenously over a period of 70 weeks. Vision, quality of life, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) status, and BRAF mutation/fusion status were also determined and correlated with outcome. Results Fifty-four patients were enrolled onto the study, with a median age of 8 years (range, 0.7 to 17.2 years). Most patients had chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors (55.5%), and 13 patients (24.1%) had NF1. The most common histology was pilocytic astrocytoma (46.3%). Seventeen patients were diagnosed using radiologic criteria alone. Best response to chemotherapy was centrally reviewed with a response rate (complete, partial, or minor response) of 25.9%. Disease stabilization (complete, partial, or minor response or stable disease) was achieved in 47 patients (87.0%). Visual improvement was observed in 20% of patients with optic pathway glioma. Five-year overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 94.4% (95% CI, 88.5% to 100%) and 53.2% (95% CI, 41.3% to 68.5%), respectively, for the entire cohort. Patients with NF1 had a significantly better PFS (85.1%; 95% CI, 68.0% to 100%) when compared with patients without NF1 (42.0%; 95% CI, 29.1% to 60.7%; P = .012). Age< 3 years or > 10 years was not associated with poor outcome. Treatment was well tolerated, and quality of life was not affected during treatment. In this trial, there was no correlation between BRAF alterations and outcome. Conclusion Vinblastine administered once per week is well tolerated in children with treatment naïve PLGG. Overall survival and PFS are comparable to current therapies, with a favorable toxicity profile and a maintained quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".