MPTH-06. 1p/19q CO-DELETION STATUS PREDICTS SURVIVAL OUTCOMES IN NRG ONCOLOGY/RTOG 9802: A PHASE III TRIAL OF RT VS RT + PCV IN HIGH RISK LOW-GRADE GLIOMAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to determine the proportion of patients with 1p/19q co-deletion and its prognostic significance in the setting of NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802, a phase III trial of high-risk low-grade gliomas. Oncoscan and/or 450K methylation data were used to determine 1p/19q status. Univariable (UVAs) and multivariable analyses (MVAs) were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratios for the effect of 1p/19q co-deletion on survival outcomes were calculated. Patient pretreatment characteristics and treatment assignment were included as covariates in MVAs. Of all the randomized and eligible patients in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802, 77 (30.7%) had tissues available and sufficient DNA for profiling. Of these patients, 28 (36.4%) were 1p/19q co-deleted, 47 (61.0%) were non-co-deleted, and 2 (2.6%) were undeterminable. Majority (85.7%) of the co-deleted patients had oligodendroglioma as opposed to astrocytoma/oligoastrocytoma, whereas 17.0% of non-co-deleted patients had oligodendroglioma. Upon UVAs, 1p/19q co-deletion was significantly correlated with better OS (HR= 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.55; p<0.001) and PFS (HR= 0.38; 95% CI 0.21-0.69; p <0.001). Upon MVAs, the statistical significance was maintained, with a HR=0.21 (95% CI: 0.09-0.46; p<0.001) for OS and a HR=0.35 (95% CI: 0.19-0.64; p<0.001) for PFS. 1p/19q co-deletion was a significant independent prognostic biomarker of high-risk low-grade gliomas in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802. Our analyses underscore the prognostic value of 1p/19q co-deletion. Importantly, this is one of the first studies to validate its prognostic significance in a grade II cohort using rigorous MVAs with prospectively-collected, well-annotated clinical data. Analysis of 1p/19 co-deletion in combination with IDH mutations is ongoing and will be presented. Additional efforts are underway to increase our sample size for the predictive analyses. FUNDING: U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822, and U10CA37422 (NCI). Also, R01CA108633, R01CA169368, RC2CA148190, U10CA180850-01 (NCI), Brain Tumor Funders Collaborative Grant, and The Ohio State University CCC (all to AC).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".