Repeat irradiation for children with supratentorial high‐grade glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are very few studies about the role of repeat irradiation (RT2) for children with recurrent supratentorial high-grade glioma (HGG). It was the aim of this study to assess the effectiveness and safety of RT2 in this population. PROCEDURE: This was a retrospective cohort study of 40 children age 18 years and under with recurrent supratentorial HGG who had received at least one course of RT. In-field reirradiation volumes included focal or whole brain RT, with doses ranging from 30 to 54 Gy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from the first day of RT2. RESULTS: Fourteen patients underwent RT2. The median survival of these patients was 6.5 months. Patients with ≥12 months elapsed time between RT1 and RT2 experienced longer OS than patients who had < 12 months (P = 0.009). There was no difference in OS between patients with or without germline mutations (e.g., Lynch, Li-Fraumeni, or constitutional mismatch-repair deficiency, P = 0.20). Ten patients received RT2 that overlapped with RT1 volumes for locally recurrent disease. Of this group, 80% experienced clinical benefit from in-field RT2, defined as clinical/radiologic response or stable disease. Ninety-three percent completed the prescribed course of RT2, with one patient developing grade 3 radiation necrosis four months after RT2. When compared with 26 patients who were not offered reirradiation, those selected for RT2 had improved median survival from the time of first disease progression (9.4 vs 3.8 months, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Reirradiation for children with recurrent supratentorial HGG is a safe, effective treatment that provides short-term disease control.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".