DIPG-74. RE-IRRADIATION OF DIPG: DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DIPG REGISTRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE To review data from DIPG Registry patients recorded to have received a second course of radiation therapy (rRT). METHODS The International DIPG Registry was searched for patients with DIPG who were treated with a known dose of rRT. Doses of rRT, timing from initial diagnosis and primary radiation therapy (pRT), radiographic response to rRT and survival from diagnosis (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS Sixty (11.2%) of 535 Registry patients underwent rRT; dose was provided for 44 patients. Median (range) data from those 44 revealed that rRT was given at 12 (2–65) months from initial diagnosis of DIPG and at 9.6 (1–61) months from completion of pRT at a dose of 26.7 (1.8–74) Gy. After completion of rRT, MRI showed response, progression, stable disease or was not available in 19, 8, 3 and 14 patients, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 11 and 18.1 months, respectively. 475 Registry patients did not undergo rRT; their ages, duration of symptoms, and primary treatment with or without chemotherapy were not significantly different from the rRT cohort. Median PFS and OS for the non-rRT patients were 6.9 and 10 months, respectively. rRT patients were more likely to have had radiographic evidence of tumor necrosis at diagnosis than non-rRT patients. CONCLUSIONS Administration of rRT to patients with DIPG has been inconsistent with respect to timing and dose. Toxicity, response and quality of life data are incomplete, but survival appears to be lengthened with rRT. Prospective clinical trials will elucidate benefits and risks of rRT.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".