Pattern of Recurrence of Glioblastoma Versus Grade 4 IDH-Mutant Astrocytoma Following Chemoradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To quantitatively compare the recurrence pattern of glioblastoma (IDH-wild type) versus grade 4 IDH-mutant astrocytoma (herein referred to as wtIDH and mutIDH, respectively) following primary chemoradiation. Methods Twenty-two wtIDH and 22 mutIDH patients matched by sex, extent of resection, and corpus callosum involvement were enrolled. The recurrent gross tumor volume (rGTV) was compared with both the gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) from radiotherapy planning. Failure patterns were quantified by the incidence and volume of the rGTV outside the GTV and CTV, and positional differences of the rGTV centroid from the GTV and CTV. Results The GTV was smaller in wtIDH compared to the mutIDH group (mean±SD: 46.5±26.0 cm3 v. 72.2±45.4 cm3, p=0.026). The rGTV was 10.7±26.9 cm3 and 46.9±55.0 cm3 smaller than the GTV for the same groups (p=0.018). The rGTV extended outside the GTV in 22 (100%) and 15 (68%) (p=0.009) of wtIDH and mutIDH patients, respectively; however, the volume of rGTV outside the GTV was not significantly different (12.4±16.1 cm3 vs. 8.4±14.2 cm3, p=0.443). The rGTV metrics extending outside the CTV was not different between the groups. The rGTV centroid was within 5.7 mm of the closest GTV edge for 21 (95%) and 22 (100%) of wtIDH and mutIDH patients, respectively. Conclusion The rGTV extended beyond the GTV less often in mutIDH patients, suggesting limited margin radiotherapy could be beneficial in this group. The results support the study of small margin adaptive radiotherapy per the ongoing UNITED MR-Linac 5 mm CTV trial (NCT04726397).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".