EPID-31. CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT OF GRADE 2 AND 3 GLIOMA IN ALBERTA AND MANITOBA, 2012–2016: COMPARISON OF TOLERABILITY AND OUTCOMES ACROSS CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Grade II/III glioma are a significant source of morbidity and mortality, with disease behaviour ranging from relatively mild to aggressive. Phase 3 clinical trial data informed contemporary treatment paradigms, but the perceived differences in tolerability between temozolomide-based regimens and procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine (PCV)-based regimens has resulted in different treatment approaches across centres. We compared the frequency of progression and adverse drug events (ADE) among patients given these two regimens. METHODS Grade II/III glioma patients were identified through cancer registries in Alberta and Manitoba. Clinical data was obtained through electronic medical records. We estimated the distribution of patient age and sex, molecular data, treatment details, ADE, and patient outcomes across groups treated by temozolomide or PCV. RESULTS From 2012–2016, 344 patients were identified. Of these, 51% received chemotherapy: 26 received PCV (5/6 cycles completed by 85%), 142 received temozolomide (5/6 cycles completed by 78%). PCV resulted in grade 3/4 ADE in 38% of cycles, most commonly bone marrow toxicity. Temozolomide resulted in grade 3/4 ADE in 6% of cycles, most commonly nausea and rash. Clinical progression events occurred in 23% and 30% of PCV and temozolomide patients, respectively. Radiological progression events occurred in 50% and 52% of PCV and temozolomide patients, respectively. CONCLUSION Systemic therapy is commonly given to patients with grade II/III glioma, with more temozolomide use compared to PCV. All patients had high completion rates of treatment despite more frequent grade 3/4 adverse events in patients treated with PCV. The frequency of progression was similar across groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".