OS01.7 MGMT promoter methylation status independently predicts progression-free survival in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802: a phase III trial of RT vs RT + PCV in high-risk low-grade gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study sought to determine the proportion of patients with MGMT promoter methylation within NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802 and its prognostic significance in the setting of high-risk low-grade gliomas in a prospective phase III trial. Methods: NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802 enrolled 251 eligible high-risk patients, treated with RT or RT + PCV. The MGMT-STP27 prediction model was used to calculate MGMT promoter methylation status from Illumina HM-450K data. Univariate (UMAs) and multivariate analyses (MVAs) were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model, to analyze the effect of MGMT status on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient pre-treatment characteristics and treatment assignment were included as covariates in MVAs. Results: Of all the eligible and randomized patients in this trial, 56 currently have MGMT status available: 43 (77%) methylated and 13 (23%) unmethylated. Between the two groups, no significant difference was observed on age and performance status at baseline. Majority of the unmethylated patients had astrocytoma dominant tumors as opposed to oligodendroglioma in the methylated group. Upon UVAs, MGMT promoter methylation was significantly correlated with better OS (HR = 2.66; p=0.01) and PFS (HR = 2.52; p=0.01). Upon MVAs, the statistical significance was maintained for PFS (HR = 3.57; p=0.001), but not OS (HR = 1.68; p=0.25). Conclusions:MGMT promoter methylation as determined by the MGMT- STP27 model was an independent prognostic biomarker of high-risk low-grade glioma treated with radiation or radiation plus PCV for PFS. Importantly, this is the first study to validate the prognostic significance of MGMT promoter methylation in a phase III study of high-risk grade II glioma patients treated with radiation plus/minus PCV using rigorous MVAs with prospectively-collected, well-annotated clinical data. Analysis of the prognostic significance of MGMT promoter methylation relative to IDH and 1p/19q status is ongoing as well as efforts to increase sample size. FUNDING: U10CA180868, U10CA180822, and U24CA196067 (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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".