Actual body weight dosing of temozolomide and overall survival in patients with glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult glioblastoma patients receiving standard radiation therapy and concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy have a median survival of 14.6 months. Based on the pivotal trial data by Stupp et al., temozolomide doses were calculated based on body surface area. However, no details regarding the weight used to calculate body surface area was included in the study. As a result, temozolomide doses have been variable across the province. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the correlation between dose of first line temozolomide with overall survival. Patients between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2014 who were newly diagnosed, pathology confirmed glioblastoma treated first line with temozolomide within Alberta Health Services were included in the study. Temozolomide doses above and below determined cut points were compared through the Kaplan-Meier method, then assessed using the log-rank test. RESULTS: A cut point of 97.8% of actual body weight calculated body surface area dosing was determined for concurrent phase temozolomide. At doses above this cut point, there was a statistically significant (p = 0.0158) increase of 0.3 years in median overall survival. As for toxicity concerns, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of temozolomide dose reductions due to toxicity in patients dosed above the cut point. CONCLUSION: Temozolomide doses at full actual body weight calculated body surface area dosing during the concurrent phase is required to achieve a similar median OS as seen in the pivotal trial by Stupp et al.
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 | 0.000 | 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".