The effects of dexrazoxane on cardiac status and second malignant neoplasms (SMN) in doxorubicin-treated patients with osteosarcoma (OS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9503 Background: Anthracyclines are highly efficacious in OS but associated with risk of cardiotoxicity. We conducted two studies using dexrazoxane as a cardioprotectant: i) AOST0121, a phase II study for metastatic OS and ii) P9754, a series of pilot studies including doxorubicin dose intensification in patients with localized OS. Methods: Patients on AOST0121 received methotrexate, doxorubicin (375 mg/m2), cisplatin, ifosfamide and etoposide (MAPIE). Those with HER2-positive tumors also received trastuzumab (4 mg/kg loading dose, 2 mg/kg weekly). On P9754, patients received MAP in Pilot 1, MAPI or MAPIE in Pilots 2 and 3. Total doxorubicin was 450 mg/m2 or 600 mg/m2 with each dose preceded by dexrazoxane (10:1 ratio). Etoposide was never given simultaneously with dexrazoxane. Measurements of left ventricular systolic function by echocardiography, serum troponin-T (cTnT, a myocardial injury marker) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP, a cardiomyopathy marker) were obtained at baseline and repeated during therapy. Secondary malignancies were reported to the NCI. Results: None of the 47 patients (17 receiving trastuzumab) evaluated for cardiac toxicity on AOST0121 had significant changes in left ventricular fractional shortening, measurable cTnT, elevation of NT-proBNP or clinical evidence of cardiotoxicity (CTCv2.0). In P9754, 242 patients were evaluated for cardiotoxicity. Only 1 patient had CTCv2.0 grade 3 toxicity and 1 patient had a measurable cTnT. Three of 96 patients treated on AOST0121 and two of 272 patients on P9754 developed AML. Combining both studies: 5/398 or 1.4%. Conclusions: This large group of OS patients demonstrates that dexrazoxane is an effective cardioprotectant for doxorubicin alone (375-600 mg/m2), and in combination with trastuzumab. Dexrazoxane did not lead to an increase in secondary malignancies in OS patients treated with these regimens as compared to historical rates of 1-2%. Our results do not support the findings of a recent European Medicines Agency safety review that concluded dexrazoxane was unsafe for use in children and adolescents due to risk of SMN.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".