Neoadjuvant temsirolimus in high-risk renal cell carcinoma: Results from a single-center prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
387 Background: The current first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) includes targeted therapy with or without cytoreductive radical nephrectomy. There is a paucity of data as to the effectiveness of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment before radical nephrectomy for localized high-risk or advanced disease. We initiated a trial of neoadjuvant Temsirolimus before radical nephrectomy for locally advanced and metastatic RCC examining tumor response and survival. Methods: Patients who presented with advanced RCC were offered enrolment into a prospective, single-centre, ethics approved trial with 12 weeks of temsirolimus before radical nephrectomy. Biopsy tissue was obtained at enrollment and at time of cytoreductive nephrectomy for diagnosis. Patients were administered 25 mg in temsirolimus on a weekly basis for 12 weeks, and then underwent radical nephrectomy. Computed tomography scans and biomarkers were obtained on enrolment, 6 weeks and 12 weeks (before nephrectomy). Ongoing outcome and survival data were analyzed. Results: Eight patients were enrolled into the trial. Patient #1 (10-cm renal mass with bulky adenopathy T2N2M0) had no evidence of disease (NED) at 6 months post-nephrectomy. Patient #2 (9-cm renal mass, bulky adenopathy, pulmonary metastases T2N2M1) also had NED at 6 months postnephrectomy. Patients #3 and #4 experienced regression of the primary mass and have recently undergone uneventful surgery with follow-up pending. Patients #5 and #6 expired prior to the full course of therapy, but had diagnoses other than RCC. Patient #7 experienced disease progression, however, this patient's nephrectomy was delayed by 3 months due to an unrelated myocardial infarct. Patient #8 experienced adverse events. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that neoadjuvant temsirolimus before radical nephrectomy for advanced RCC may improve disease regression post-surgery, and may lead to disease resolution in patients with low-volume disease. Randomized studies with longer term follow-up is necessary to assess overall progression-free survival and overall survival. [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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".