Post-chemoradiation volumetric response predicts survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with radiation, temozolomide, and bevacizumab or placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the current study we used contrast-enhanced T1 subtraction maps to test whether early changes in enhancing tumor volume are prognostic for overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients treated with chemoradiation with or without bevacizumab (BV). Methods: Seven hundred ninety-eight patients (404 BV and 394 placebo) with newly diagnosed GBM in the AVAglio trial (NCT00943826) had baseline MRI scans available, while 337 BV-treated and 269 placebo-treated patients had >4 MRI scans for response evaluation. The volume of contrast-enhancing tumor was quantified and used for subsequent analyses. Results: A decrease in tumor volume during chemoradiation was associated with a longer OS in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.578, P < 0.0001) but not BV-treated group (HR = 1.135, P = 0.4889). Results showed a higher OS in patients on the placebo arm with a sustained decrease in tumor volume using a post-chemoradiation baseline (HR = 1.692, P = 0.0005), and a trend toward longer OS was seen in BV-treated patients (HR = 1.264, P = 0.0724). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed that sustained response or stable disease was prognostic for OS (HR = 0.7509, P = 0.0127) when accounting for age (P = 0.0002), KPS (P = 0.1516), postsurgical tumor volume (P < 0.0001), O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status (P < 0.0001), and treatment type (P = 0.7637) using the post-chemoradiation baseline. Conclusions: The post-chemoradiation timepoint is a better baseline for evaluating efficacy in newly diagnosed GBM. Early progression during the maintenance phase is consequential in predicting OS, supporting the use of progression-free survival rates as a meaningful surrogate for GBM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".