MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2608349617 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox036.114

P02.02 Treatment and Outcomes in Glioblastoma Multiforme: A multi-country chart review study

2017· article· en· W2608349617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alicia C. Shillington, C. Macahilig, James W. Shaw, Homa Dastani

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTemozolomideGlioblastomaCohortCensoring (clinical trials)Retrospective cohort studyDemographicsInternal medicinePediatricsRadiation therapyDemographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is an existing unmet need in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) due lack of effective treatment options. To understand the treatment landscape as newer agents are in development, it was the objective of this study to gain a better understanding of the current treatment of second line (2L) GBM therapy with related outcomes in a “real-world” setting in Canada, France and Germany. Methods: A retrospective, chart-review study was conducted in each country; 72 oncologists were recruited to contribute patients ≥18 years of age, newly diagnosed with GBM between January 1, 2013 - June 30, 2015 with a minimum of 12 months follow-up or until death. Excluded were those treated with investigational agents. Patients were followed through August 2016. Enrollment was in 2 cohorts, Cohort 1 comprising a random selection of 337 patients irrespective of line of the therapy (LOT). Cohort 2 included 136 patients who received more than one LOT for a total N = 473 (146 each in France and Germany, and 181 in Canada). Demographics and treatment data were analyzed descriptively. Survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis censoring for date of chart abstraction in surviving patients. Results: Patients were 61% male with mean (SD) age of 61.4 (12.0) years at initial diagnosis. Overall, most patients (92%) were treated 1L with temozolomide (TMZ) monotherap and 88% received radiation. In the 337 patient random sample, 97 (29%) received 2L treatment. A total of 233 patients in both cohorts were analyzed for 2L treatment and outcomes. Of all 2L-treated patients the majority were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance grade 1 (38%) or 2 (49%) at the time of 2L start. In 2L, 27% were retreated with TMZ monotherapy, 7% received TMZ in combination with other agents, 40% received bevacizumab either as monotherapy 22%, or combination therapy (18%). In all patients receiving a 2L therapy, complete response following 2L was achieved by 5%, 23% partial response and 29%, stable disease. Median overall survival from start of 2L was 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5 – 8.5) in all patients, (7.0 [95% CI 6–8.1] in France; 6.0 [95% CI 4.5–7.4] in Germany; 10.5 [95% CI 8.6–12.5] in Canada). Conclusions: Most GBM patients received TMZ during 1L and bevacizumab monotherapy or combination therapy during 2L treatment with some regional differences. Survival following initiation of 2L treatment was poor. Prognosis remains grim under current treatment paradigms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→