ANGI-09COMPARISON OF PROGRESSION PATTERN (PP) AND ADVERSE EVENTS (AES) WITH USE OF BEVACIZUMAB (BEV) ACROSS MULTIPLE LINES IN THE TREATMENT IN GLIOBLASTOMA (GBM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RTOG 0825 and AVAGlio studies showed mixed survival results when bev was added to first line GBM treatment. In North America, use of bev is only approved for recurrent disease. Others have explored the reasons for bev failure; two hypotheses included 1) bev promoting distant and diffuse PP as a resistance mechanism 2) AEs related to the use of bev. This study was undertaken to describe and compare PPs and AEs associated with bev in newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM. METHODS: Sixty-four GBM patients treated with bev at McGill University Hospitals between 2008-2014 were identified. 30/64 (46.9%) patients received bev 1st line (B1L) and 34/64 (53.1%) received bev in 2nd line and beyond (B2L+). The median length of treatment was 24.4 weeks (range 0-232.7). Retrospective data collection through chart review for PPs was categorized: local, distant, diffuse and multifocal progression (LoP, DsP, DfP, MfP) or multi-pattern progression (MpP). AEs were documented as per CTCAE version 4.0. RESULTS: B1L vs B2L+ showed following PP: LR 46.7% vs 26.5%, DsP 3.3% vs 2.9%, DfP 20% vs 47%, MfR 10% vs 8.8%, MpP 3.3% vs 11.8%. No difference between B1L vs B2L+ were observed in DsP (p = 0.3) and DfP (p = 0.4) PP. Grade 3/4 AEs in B1L vs B2L + : fatigue 33.3% vs 17.6%, hypertension 26.7% vs 5.9%, thrombocytopenia 26.7% vs 11.8%, neutropenia 26.7% vs 11.8%, anemia 23.3% vs 11.8%, leucopenia 20% vs 8.8%, deep vein thrombosis, 23.3% vs 5.9%, seizures 16.7% vs 8.8%, brain hemorrhage 6.7% vs <1% and delayed wound healing 6.7% vs 2.9%. More total grade 3/4 AEs occurred in B1L (p = 0.000519). CONCLUSION: In our cohort, no PP differences occurred between B1L vs B2L + , suggesting no difference in resistance mechanism. Moreover, similar AEs occurred in B1L and B2L with more grade 3/4 A/Es in B1L group, supporting use in B2L+.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".