Patterns of toxicities and outcome in children versus adolescents/young adults (AYA) with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS): A report from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10554 Background: Age at diagnosis is a prognostic factor in patients with RMS. We sought to determine whether AYA with metastatic alveolar (ARMS) or embryonal (ERMS) RMS had a different failure-free survival (FFS) compared to younger patients, and to identify treatment related factors that may be associated with outcome. Methods: COG ARST0431 patients were reviewed. The incidence of toxicities (AE, grade3/4 using CTCAEv3) by age was determined in 4 reporting periods (RP: wks 1-6; RP2:7-19; RP3: 20-34; RP4: 35-54). The AEs in younger patients (<=13 years) were compared with those in AYA. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Results: Of 109 patients, 60 (55%) were AYA. In RP1, they were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (4.1 vs. 16.9%, p=0.06), pain (6.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.05), and metabolic disturbances (4.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.02) compared to younger patients. In RP4, older patients trended to have less infection (15.8 vs. 30.1, p=0.07). All other toxicities were similar between the two age cohorts in the other RPs. AYA were less likely to complete therapy (52 vs. 73%, p=0.03) and more likely (in RP 4) to have unplanned dose modifications (outside of protocol guidelines) (23 vs. 2.7%). Of patients that completed therapy, there was no age-related difference in the time to completion. As shown in the table, younger patients had better 3-yr FFS, driven by a lower FFS for AYA with ARMS. Conclusions: This evaluation suggests that AYA with RMS were less likely to complete therapy and experienced a higher prevalence of pain and nausea compared to younger patients; the role of reporting bias and reasons for treatment discontinuation need further study. Children were more likely than AYA to have infection. Inferior FFS was only seen in AYA with ARMS suggesting a clear need for novel therapies for these patients. This study may be underpowered to demonstrate significant differences in other toxicities or in FFS among ERMS patients. [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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".