VIncristine, irinotecan, and temozolomide in children and adolescents with relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of vincristine, irinotecan, and temozolomide (VIT) is often used to treat children and adolescents with relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS); however, the outcome of these patients has not been previously described. PROCEDURES: We sought to determine the response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with relapsed RMS treated with VIT by retrospective review of patients treated at five tertiary care hospitals. Prior treatment with irinotecan was permitted. RESULTS: Among 19 patients with a median age of 8 years (range 2-17 years), 12 (63%) were males and 12 (63%) had embryonal histology. Median time to relapse from initial diagnosis was 16 months (range 2.8-45 months). VIT was used as first, second, third, or fourth line of therapy in four (21%), seven (37%), six (32%), and two (10%) patients, respectively. Four patients received VIT as adjuvant therapy following radiation and/or surgery. Therefore, among 15 evaluable patients, the best response to VIT was 0 (complete response, CR), 0 (partial response, PR), 4 (stable disease, SD), and 11 (progressive disease, PD) for an overall clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD) of 26.7% (95% CI: 7.8-55.1%). After a median follow-up of 8 months, 2 (10%) patients were alive without disease, 3 (16%) were alive with disease, and 14 (74%) patients died of PD. PFS at 3 months was 23% (95% CI: 5.7-46.7%). CONCLUSIONS: VIT therapy in combination with adequate local control is associated with some disease control in patients with first relapse RMS and may be another reasonable option to offer patients as salvage therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".