MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NRG Oncology CC001: A phase III trial of hippocampal avoidance (HA) in addition to whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) plus memantine to preserve neurocognitive function (NCF) in patients with brain metastases (BM).

2019· article· en· W2947388394 on OpenAlex
Vinai Gondi, Snehal Deshmukh, Paul D. Brown, Jeffrey S. Wefel, Wolfgang A. Tomé, Terri S. Armstrong, Deborah Watkins Bruner, Joseph Bovi, Clifford G. Robinson, Deepak Khuntia, David R. Grosshans, André Konski, David Roberge, Vijayananda Kundapur, Kiran Devisetty, Sunjay Shah, Kenneth Y. Usuki, Bethany Anderson, Minesh P. Mehta, Lisa A. Kachnic

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of SaskatchewanHôtel-Dieu de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioNeurocognitiveInternal medicineClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialCumulative incidenceRadiosurgeryOncologyRadiation therapyConfidence intervalSurgeryCohortCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2009 Background: NRG CC001, a phase III trial of WBRT plus memantine (WBRT+M) with or without HA, sought to evaluate the neuro-protective effects of lowering the hippocampal radiation dose. Methods: Patients (pts) with BM were stratified by RPA class and prior radiosurgery/surgery and randomized to WBRT+M or HA-WBRT+M (30Gy/10 fractions). Standardized NCF tests were performed at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months (mos). The primary endpoint was NCF failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Trail Making Test, or Controlled Oral Word Association. Cumulative incidence estimated NCF failure (death without NCF failure was competing risk); between-arms differences tested using Gray’s test. Deterioration at each collection time point was tested using a chi-square test. Patient-reported symptoms were assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor module and analyzed using mixed effects models and t-tests. Results: From 7/2016 to 3/2018, 518 pts were randomized. Median follow-up was 7.9 mos. HA-WBRT+M was associated with lower NCF failure risk (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, p = 0.02) due to lower risk of deterioration in executive function at 4 mos (p = 0.01) and encoding (p = 0.049) and consolidation (p = 0.02) at 6 mos. Age≤61 predicted lower NCF failure risk (HR = 0.60, p = 0.0002); non-significant test for interaction indicated independent effects of HA and age. Patient-reported fatigue (p = 0.036), difficulty speaking (p = 0.049) and problems remembering things (p = 0.013) at 6 mos favored the HA-WBRT+M arm. Imputation models accounting for missing data also favored the HA-WBRT+M arm for patient-reported cognition (p = 0.011) and symptom interference (p = 0.008) at 6 mos. Treatment arms did not differ in toxicity, overall survival, or intracranial progression. Conclusions: HA during WBRT+M for BM better preserves NCF and patient-reported symptoms, while achieving similar intracranial control and survival. Supported by grants UG1CA189867 (NCORP), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), DCP from the National Cancer Institute. Clinical trial information: NCT02360215.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it