The Impact of Timing of Concurrent Chemoradiation in Patients With High-Grade Glioma in the Era of the Stupp Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to provide a critical review of current evidence for the impact of time to initiation of chemoradiation on overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas treated with radiation and concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies were included if they provided separate analysis for patients treated with current standard of care: radiation and concurrent temozolomide. Bias assessment was performed for each included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale, with Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and extent of resection used for comparability. Results: The initial search yielded 575 citations. Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 10 retrospective cohort studies were included in this review for a total of 30,298 patients. Of these, one study described an indirect relationship between time to initiation of treatment and overall survival. One study found decreased survival only with patients with significantly longer time to treatment. Four studies found no significant effect of time to treatment on overall survival. The four remaining studies found that patients with moderate time to initiation had the best overall survival. Conclusion: This review provides evidence that moderate time to initiation of chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-grade gliomas does not lead to a significant decrease in overall survival, though the effect of significant delays in treatment initiation remains unclear.
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 | 0.021 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".