An analysis of adjuvant temozolomide plus radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in a single academic institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1575 Background: The NCIC CE.3/EORTC 22981/26981 was open during the time period of August 2000 to March 2002. When the study closed, there existed a gap in care that did not address the ongoing management of patients (pts) with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) that had been surgically excised. As a result of this gap, it was decided that the adjuvant use of temozolomide (TMZ) was to become the standard of care at our centre due to its lack of perceived toxicities and early evidence for its activity. Methods: An analysis was performed of all pts with GBM that were seen at the centre from 1998 to the summer of 2005. In total, 240 pts were identified across multiple medical and radiation oncologists. 75 pts were treated with radiotherapy (RAD) alone post surgery, 86 pts were treated with RAD + TMZ post surgery, 18 pts only had surgery and the remaining pts were unresectable. Average age was 59.7 years for pts treated only with RAD, and 54.6 years for those treated with TMZ + RAD (p = 0.028). 59% of pts treated with RAD were male, while 62% treated with RAD + TMZ were male. Median follow-up was 11.3 months for RAD and 15.7 months for TMZ + RAD (p = 0.0001816). Preliminary survival analysis demonstrates a 56% reduction in the risk of death for pts treated with TMZ + RAD when compared to RAD (log rank p = 9.6 × 10−6). Median survival was 12.7 months for pts treated with RAD and 27 months for pts treated with TMZ + RAD (see table ). A further analysis including recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and duration of therapy post RAD will be attempted to confirm the similarities between the two groups. Conclusion: Adjuvant TMZ + RAD has increased overall survival by 14.3 months in our institution. Further analysis is necessary to determine the impact on duration of therapy of TMZ. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".