A pediatric trial of radiation/cetuximab followed by irinotecan/cetuximab in newly diagnosed diffuse pontine gliomas and high‐grade astrocytomas: A Pediatric Oncology Experimental Therapeutics Investigators' Consortium study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs) and high-grade astrocytomas (HGA) continue to have dismal prognoses. The combination of cetuximab and irinotecan was demonstrated to be safe and tolerable in a previous pediatric phase 1 combination study. We developed this phase 2 trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of cetuximab given with radiation therapy followed by adjuvant cetuximab and irinotecan. METHODS: Eligible patients of age 3-21 years had newly diagnosed DIPG or HGA. Patients received radiation therapy (5,940 cGy) with concurrent cetuximab. Following radiation, patients received cetuximab weekly and irinotecan daily for 5 days per week for 2 weeks every 21 days for 30 weeks. Correlative studies were performed. The regimen was considered to be promising if the number of patients with 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) for DIPG and HGA was at least six of 25 and 14 of 26, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-five evaluable patients were enrolled (25 DIPG and 20 HGA). Six patients with DIPG and five with HGA were progression free at 1 year from the start of therapy with 1-year PFS of 29.6% and 18%, respectively. Fatigue, gastrointestinal complaints, electrolyte abnormalities, and rash were the most common adverse events and generally of grade 1 and 2. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor copy number but no K-ras mutations were identified in available samples. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet the predetermined endpoint to deem this regimen successful for HGA. While the trial met the predetermined endpoint for DIPG, overall survival was not markedly improved from historical controls, therefore does not merit further study in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".