Glioblastoma multiforme among elderly; a tertiary care center experience (P4.242)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty persists about the tolerability of concurrent temozolomide (TMZ) plus radiation therapy (RT) in elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM). OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective study between 2010-2014 in our University center to compare the clinical outcome of unselected elderly GBM patients aged 55-69 and ≥70. METHODS: We divided our group in 4 homogeneous adjuvant treatment modalities: concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) with standard 60Gy RT (SRT); CCRT with hypofractionated 40Gy RT (HRT); HRT alone; and TMZ alone. RESULTS: Among 171 patients identified, median age was 66(55-83), and mOS 11.4mo[95[percnt]CI(9.2-13.3)]. The 116(68[percnt]) patients aged 55-69 had a much better mOS compared to the 55(32[percnt]) aged ≥70 (13.3 vs 6.6 months; p=0.001). Among patients who underwent a biopsy (n=43; 25[percnt]), there was no survival difference in patients aged 55-69 and ≥70 (4.7 vs 3.9 months; p=0.252). However, patients aged 55-69 survived twice as those aged ≥70 if they had a partial or complete resection (15.0 vs 7.9 months; p=0.003; HR=2.0; 95[percnt]CI[1.26-3.19]). According to treatment modalities; 109/171 patients were treated with CCRT-SRT, and there was no survival difference between the 95(87[percnt]) patients aged 55-69 and the 14(13[percnt]) aged ≥70 (14.4 vs 13.2 months; p=0.798). Only 15/171(9[percnt]) patients received CCRT-HRT; 3(20[percnt]) aged 55-69 and 12(80[percnt]) ≥70, with mOS 28.4 vs 11.1 months (p=0.075). There was no difference in survival of patients aged ≥70 treated with CCRT-SRT vs CCRT-HRT (13.2 vs 11.1 months, p=0.248). Post-CCRT adjuvant TMZ was given to 119(70[percnt]) patients; 72[percnt] aged 55-69 and 28[percnt] ≥70, with 4.5 vs 2.5 median number of cycles (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests no survival advantage to CCRT-SRT over CCRT-HRT in unselected elderly patients ≥70y, despite they have a worse prognostic than youngers. However, only 9[percnt] of our population received CCRT-HRT, meaning the elderly population was treated as younger with equivalent survival. Theses results need prospective confirmation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".