Do children and adolescents with completely resected alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma require adjuvant radiation? A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) remains unclear in patients with localized, completely resected (group I) alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS). PROCEDURE: Patients with group I ARMS enrolled on any one of three prior Children's Oncology Group (COG) clinical trials (D9602, D9803, or ARST0531) were analyzed. All patients received systemic chemotherapy and 36 Gy adjuvant RT (if given) to the primary site at week 12 or week 4 for D9602/D9803 and ARST0531, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with group I ARMS were treated on D9602 (n = 6), D9803 (n = 17), or ARST0531 (n = 13), of whom 24 (67%) were male. The median age was 4.1 years (range, 0.8-45.8). Twenty (56%) patients had an unfavorable primary site, and 10 (28%) had tumors > 5 cm. FOXO1-fusion status was negative, positive, and unknown in 10 (28%), 15 (42%), and 11 (30%) tumors, respectively. Twenty-two (61%) patients received RT. Overall, the four-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 70.8% and 88.3%, respectively. Patients with FOXO1 positivity who received RT had superior EFS compared with those who did not (77.8% vs 16.7%; P = 0.03). Among 10 patients who were FOXO1 negative, the outcome was similar with or without RT. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by a small sample size, data from this study support the routine use of adjuvant RT in patients with FOXO1-positive disease even after complete resection. Additionally, omitting adjuvant RT is rational for patients with FOXO1-negative ARMS and will be prospectively investigated in the current COG trial ARST1431.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".