Carboplatin and vincristine neurotoxicity in the treatment of pediatric low‐grade gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric low-grade gliomas (LGG) represent 30-50% of central nervous system pediatric tumors. Over the last decades, the combination of carboplatin and vincristine (CV) has become the first line of treatment in most centers. In a large clinical trial where the efficacy of CV was compared to another regimen, 19% presented grade III neurotoxicity. Despite the fact that CV therapy is widely used for pediatric patients with LGG, no study has reported detailed neurological adverse events and outcome with this treatment regimen. The purpose of this retrospective study is to better understand neurotoxicity associated with CV. PROCEDURE: We conducted a retrospective study to better evaluate the incidence and evolution of neurotoxicity associated with CV in patients with LGG. RESULTS: Twenty-one pediatric patients were treated with CV at our single institution over 16 years. Most patients had optic glioma. Peripheral neuropathy was present in most patients (86%). Eight patients (38%) had a dose reduction of vincristine due to grade III toxicity (three motor neuropathies, three sensory neuropathies, one constipation, and one dysphagia). Most neurotoxicity occurred during induction or the first maintenance cycle. No ototoxicity was observed during treatment or follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, neurotoxicity with vincristine occurred two times more frequently than in previously published literature. Careful neurological assessment is important to detect neurotoxicity, especially during induction. The high incidence of neurotoxicity should be considered when selecting a chemotherapy regimen for pediatric LGG.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".