Patterns of chemotherapy‐induced toxicities and outcome in children and adolescents with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether adolescents with metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS) or embryonal RMS (ERMS) had a different event-free survival (EFS) compared with younger patients, and to identify treatment-related factors (adverse events, AEs) that may be associated with differences in outcome. METHODS: The prevalence of AEs in adolescents older than 13 years was compared with that in patients less than or equal to 13 years of age (Fisher exact test) in patients enrolled onto ARST0431. EFS by age and histology was compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 109 patients, 60 (55%) were older than 13 years; they were more likely to have nausea (17 vs. 4%, P = 0.06) and pain (20 vs. 6%, P = 0.05) compared with younger patients. Adolescents were less likely to complete therapy (63 vs. 76%) and more likely to have unplanned dose modifications outside of protocol guidelines (23 vs. 2.7%). The 3-year EFS was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15-38) for adolescents compared with 46% (95% CI: 32-60) for those less than or equal to 13 years (P = 0.011). Forty-two (59%) adolescents with ARMS had a 3-year EFS of 13% (95% CI: 2-23) compared with 30% (95% CI: 10-51) for those less than or equal to 13 years (P = 0.032). EFS was comparable between older and younger patients with ERMS (64 vs. 55%, P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a significant difference in EFS and protocol compliance by age, the differences in age-related toxicity are unlikely to account for this. Observed differences in pain and nausea by age could be real or be dependent on patient reporting of symptoms. Future studies in RMS should include patient-reported outcomes to better evaluate health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".