MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long-term analysis of the WHO-defined molecular subgroups of high-risk grade II gliomas treated with radiation and temozolomide on NRG Oncology/RTOG 0424.

2020· article· en· W3029047215 on OpenAlexaff
Erica H. Bell, Stephanie L. Pugh, Barbara J. Fisher, Glenn J. Lesser, David R. Macdonald, Jessica L. Fleming, Joseph P. McElroy, Aline Paixão Becker, Leland Rogers, Thomas J. Doyle, Maria Werner‐Wasik, Jean-Paul Bahary, Michael Yu, David D’Souza, Nadia N. Laack, Patricia Penny Sneed, Young Kwok, Steven Howard, Minesh P. Mehta, Arnab Chakravarti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalWestern UniversityCancer Care Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTemozolomideMedicineInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioGliomaChemoradiotherapyAdjuvantProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyCancer researchConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2518 Background: This study sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the three WHO-defined molecular glioma subgroups ( IDHwt, IDHmt/non-codel, and IDHmt/codel) in NRG Oncology/RTOG 0424, a phase II trial of high-risk low-grade gliomas treated with radiation (RT) and concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) after biopsy/surgical resection. Notably, this is the first clinical study to evaluate the prognostic value of the WHO subgroups in RT + TMZ-treated high-risk grade II (G2) gliomas using prospectively-collected long-term survival data. Methods: IDH1/2 mutation status was determined by next-generation sequencing. 1p/19q co-deletion status was determined by Oncoscan and/or 450K methylation data. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by marker status were determined by the Cox proportional hazard model and tested using the log-rank test in a post-hoc analysis. Patient pre-treatment characteristics were included as covariates in multivariate analyses. Results: Of all the eligible patients (N=129), 80 (62%) had sufficient quality DNA for both IDH and 1p/19q analyses. Of these 80, 54 (67.5%) were IDHmt, and 26 (32.5%) were IDHwt. Of the 54 IDHmt patients, 26 (32.5% of total, 48% of IDHmt) were IDHmt/codel, and 28 (35% of total, 52% of IDHmt) were IDHmt/non-codel. Both IDHmt subgroups were significantly correlated with longer PFS ( IDHmt/co-del = 8.1yrs (5.2-not reached (NR)); IDHmt/non-codel = 7.5yrs (3.9-11.8); IDHwt = 1.0yr (0.6-1.7), p<0.001) and OS ( IDHmt/co-del = 9.4yrs (8.2-NR); IDHmt/non-codel = 8.8yrs (5.9-NR); IDHwt = 2.3yrs (1.4-3.4), p<0.001) relative to the IDHwt subgroup. Upon univariate and multivariate analyses, both molecular IDHmt subgroup comparisons relative to IDHwt remained significant (p<0.001) even after incorporation of known clinical variables. Conclusions: These analyses suggest that G2 glioma patients harboring IDH1/2 mutations, regardless of co-deletion status, demonstrated longer survival with RT + TMZ relative to IDHwt tumors, although sample size is limited and analyses were post-hoc. These results also support the notion that outcomes for IDHwt high-risk G2 gliomas remain dismal (median = 2.3yrs, similar to G3 anaplastic astrocytoma); these patients should be separated from IDHmt patients in future G2 glioma trials, and warrant novel treatment strategies. Funding: U10CA180868, U10CA180822, U24CA196067, CURE, PA Dept. of Health, and Merck. Also, R01CA108633, R01CA169368, RC2CA148190, U10CA180850, BTFC, OSUCCC (all to AC). Clinical trial information: NCT00114140 .

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→