Relationship between tumor response at therapy completion and prognosis in patients with Group III rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A subset of patients with initially unresected (Clinical Group III) rhabdomyosarcoma achieve less than a complete response (CR) despite multimodal therapy. We assessed outcome based upon tumor response at the completion of all planned therapy. We studied 601 Clinical Group III participants who completed all protocol therapy without developing progressive disease on two Children's Oncology Group studies ARST0531 (n = 285) and D9803 (n = 316). Response was defined by imaging and categorized by response; complete resolution (CR), partial response (PR) or no response (NR). Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) between response groups were compared using the log-rank test. We found that radiographic response was CR in 393 (65.4%) and PR/NR in 208 (34.6%) patients. Achieving CR status was associated with study D9803, nonparameningeal (PM) primary sites, tumors ≤5 cm, noninvasive tumors and alveolar histology/FOXO fusion-positive tumors. The overall 5-year FFS was 75% for those achieving CR and 66.5% in those with PR/NR (adj. p = 0.094). Patients with PM primary site who achieved CR had significantly improved FFS (adj. p = 0.037) while those with non-PM primary sites had similar outcomes (adj. p = 0.47). Radiographic response was not associated with OS (adj. p = 0.21). Resection of the end-of-therapy mass did not improve FFS (p = 0.12) or OS (p = 0.37). In conclusion, CR status at the end of protocol therapy in patients with PM Clinical Group III RMS was associated with improved FFS but not OS. Efforts to understand the biology and treatment response in patients with PM primary site are under investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".