QLIF-25. EFFECT OF TUMOR TREATING FIELDS (TTFIELDS) ON HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE (HRQoL) IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA. RESULTS OF THE EF-14 RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TTFields is a novel treatment modality using a patient-operated device applying alternating electrical fields, interfering with organelle assembly and mitosis in diving cells. Previously, TTFields has shown to improve both progression-free and overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To determine the net clinical benefit, results on HRQoL are also important. Patients completed two validated HRQoL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 + BN20) at baseline, and every 3 months thereafter. HRQoL over time was assessed for 9 preselected scales: global health, physical, cognitive, role, social and emotional functioning, itchy skin, pain, and weakness of legs. Also deterioration-free survival (DFS) and time to deterioration (TTD) were determined. 639/695 (92%) patients completed at least the baseline HRQoL questionnaires, which dropped to 42% (197/473) after 1 year. Baseline scores were balanced. HRQoL over time did not significantly differ between treatment arms, except for itchy skin, which was worse with TTFields. More TTFields patients reported stable or improved scores on global health status (53% vs. 38%, p=.001), pain (57% vs. 36%, p<.0001), physical functioning (54% vs. 38%, p=.001) and leg weakness (59% vs. 42%, p=.001). DFS was significantly longer with TTFields for global health (4.8 vs. 3.3 months), physical (5.1 vs. 3.7 months) and emotional functioning (5.3 vs. 3.9 months), pain (5.6 vs. 3.6 months) and leg weakness (5.6 vs. 3.9 months) (all p<.01). TTD did not differ, except for itchy skin (TTFields worse; 8.2 vs. 14.4 months) and pain (TTFields improved; 13.4 vs. 12.1 months) (both p<.001). TTFields does not negatively impact HRQoL, except for itchy skin, an expected consequence from the electrodes. TTFields did improve DFS of several HRQoL scales, likely related to improved progression-free and overall survival. Excluding progressive disease by considering TTD, TTFields results in less pain, but worse itchy skin. More TTFields patients reported stable/improved HRQoL scores.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".