MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2971458410 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz126.271

P14.36 Treatment patterns by O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter (MGMT) status in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM): a multi-country chart review study

2019· article· en· W2971458410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex Z. Fu, Gwilym Thompson, J. Hall, Abigail Bailey, J. Kemp, C Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemozolomideMedicineProcarbazineLomustineInternal medicineRadiation therapyGlioblastomaOncologySurgeryVincristineChemotherapyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION This study explored the relationship between MGMT testing and treatment patterns of patients with newly-diagnosed GBM from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (EU5), and Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS Medical oncologists and neuro-oncologists across EU5 and Canada completed a point in time, cross-sectional survey for the next eight GBM patients seen between May and July 2016 (GBM Disease-specific ProgrammeTM). Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between groups are presented. RESULTS A total of 241 physicians reported on 1,747 GBM patients. 1L patients had mean age 59.7 years (SD=12.3) and 36% were female. Of 1,113 (64%) patients who had an MGMT test performed with results recorded (tested), 58% (n=651) were methylated and 42% (n=462) were unmethylated. The remaining 634 patients (36%) were MGMT untested or awaiting MGMT results at time of survey (untested). Overall, 63% of patients received surgery prior to their 1L drug therapy, 78% received radiotherapy (RT; mean 4.3 sessions) in conjunction with 1L drug therapy, 90% received corticosteroids during RT, and 89% received temozolomide (TMZ). Patients who received corticosteroids during RT received similar drug treatments to those that did not, but were less likely to receive surgery prior to 1L treatment (65% vs 83%). MGMT-tested patients were more likely to receive surgery (66% vs 57%) and RT (81% vs 71%) than untested patients. Tested patients were also more likely to receive TMZ (92% vs 83%), and less likely to receive procarbazine+/lomustine+/vincristine (PCV; 3% vs 7%) or other chemotherapies (5% vs 11%). For 1L patients that experienced side effects, the most common effects included fatigue (74%), nausea (60%), and appetite loss (59%). Untested patients were more likely to stop their 1L drug treatment due to progression/recurrence of GBM (44% vs 36%). Patients who received surgery prior to 1L treatment were more likely to receive TMZ than those who did not (93% vs 82%). Among MGMT tested patients at 1L, methylated patients were more likely to receive RT (84% vs 78%) and TMZ (95% vs 89%) than unmethylated patients, and less likely to receive PCV (2% vs 5%) or other chemotherapy (4% vs 7%). Methylated patients with reported treatment-related side effects were less likely to experience dehydration (0% vs 10%), loss of strength/unusual weakness (5% vs 25%), memory problems (16% vs 35%), and nausea (51% vs 75%). CONCLUSIONS More than one-third of GBM patients in EU5 and Canada are not tested for MGMT-methylation. Untested patients are less likely to receive standard treatments than tested patients. Generally, TMZ is used in most patients regardless of MGMT testing and status. MGMT-methylated patients are more likely to receive standard treatments and experience fewer side effects than MGMT-unmethylated patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→