A Phase II feasibility study of oral etoposide given concurrently with radiotherapy followed by dose intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for children with newly diagnosed high‐risk medulloblastoma (protocol POG 9631): A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Children with high‐risk medulloblastoma historically have had a poor prognosis. The Children's Oncology Group completed a Phase II study using oral etoposide given with radiotherapy followed by intensive chemotherapy. Procedure Patients enrolled in the study had high‐risk disease defined as ≥1.5 cm2 of residual disease postsurgery or definite evidence of central nervous metastasis. All patients underwent surgery followed by radiotherapy. During radiation, the patients received oral etoposide (21 days on, 7 off) at an initial dose of 50 mg/m2 per day (treatment 1), which was reduced to 35 mg/m2 per day (treatment 2) due to toxicity. After radiotherapy, the patients received chemotherapy with three cycles of cisplatin and oral etoposide, followed by eight courses of cyclophosphamide and vincristine. Results Between November 1998 and October 2002, 53 patients were accrued; 15 received treatment 1 and 38 treatment 2. Forty‐seven patients (89%) were eligible. Response to radiation was excellent, with 19 (40.4%) showing complete response, 24 (51.1%) partial response, and four (8.5%) no recorded response. The overall 2‐ and 5‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) was 76.6 ± 6% and 70.2 ± 7%, respectively. The 2‐ and 5‐year overall survival (OS) was 80.9 ± 6% and 76.6 ± 6%, respectively. Clinical response postradiation and PFS/OS were not significantly different between the treatment groups. There was a trend toward a difference in 5‐year PFS between those without and with metastatic disease (P = 0.072). Conclusions Oral etoposide was tolerable at 35 mg/m2 (21 days on and 7 days off) when given during full‐dose irradiation in patients with high‐risk medulloblastoma with encouraging survival data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".