PL3.3 Second interim and first molecular analysis of the EORTC randomized phase III intergroup CATNON trial on concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in anaplastic glioma without 1p/19q codeletion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The 1st interim analysis of the CATNON trial showed benefit from adjuvant (adj) temozolomide (TMZ) on overall survival (OS) but remained inconclusive about concurrent (conc) TMZ. A 2nd interim analysis was planned after 356 events. MATERIAL AND METHODS The 2x2 factorial design phase III CATNON trial randomized 751 adult patients with newly diagnosed non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to either 59.4 Gy radiotherapy (RT) alone; the same RT with concTMZ; the same RT and 12 cycles of adjTMZ or the same RT with both concTMZ and adjTMZ (doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31442-3). MGMT promoter methylation (MGMTmeth) status was re-assessed with the Infinium Methylation EPIC Beadchip using the MGMT_STP27 model. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH) mutation (mt) status was assessed with glioma targeted Agilent SureSelect baits sequence using an Illumina HiSeq2500 Rapid PE100. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 56 months and 356 events, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS adjusted for stratification factors after concTMZ was 0.968 (99.1% CI 0.73, 1.28). 5-year OS was 50.2% with and 52.7% without concTMZ (95% CI [44.4, 55.7] and [46.9, 58.1]). An IDHmt was found in 335 of 480 assessed cases (70%). Median OS was 19 mo (95% CI 16.3, 22.3) in IDHwt tumors and 116 mo (95% CI 82.0, 116.6) in IDHmt tumors. The interaction test based on IDH status was significant (p=0.016) in the univariate HR analysis for OS after concTMZ (IDHwt, n=145, events=120, HR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.89, 1.82, p=0.19; IDHmt, n=335, events=92, HR= 0.67, 95% CI 0.44, 1.03, p=0.06). IDHmt was predictive of benefit from adjTMZ (IDHmt HR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.27, 0.64; IDHwt: HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73, 1.52; interaction test p = 0.001). In IDHmt patients that received adjTMZ, the HR for OS after concTMZ was 0.71 (95% CI 0.35, 1.42, p=0.32). MGMTmeth was found in 288 of 410 assessed cases (70%), interaction test for concTMZ (p = 0.092) and adjTMZ (p = 0.166) did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION In the entire study cohort, concTMZ did not increase OS. However, in IDHmt tumors a trend towards benefit of concTMZ is present. AdjTMZ increased OS in IDHmt but not in IDHwt tumors. Further analyses and follow-up will allow full assessment of efficacy in the molecular subgroups.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".