Optimizing management of the elderly patient with glioblastoma: Survival prediction online tool based on BC Cancer Registry real-world data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GBM) is associated with fatal outcomes and devastating neurological presentations especially impacting the elderly. Management remains controversial and representation in clinical trials poor. We generated 2 nomograms and a clinical decision making web tool using real-world data. Methods Patients ≥60 years of age with histologically confirmed GBM (ICD-O-3 histology codes 9440/3, 9441/3, and 9442/3) diagnosed 2005–2015 were identified from the BC Cancer Registry (n = 822). Seven hundred and twenty-nine patients for which performance status was captured were included in the analysis. Age, performance and resection status, administration of radiation therapy (RT), and chemotherapy were reviewed. Nomograms predicting 6- and 12-month overall survival (OS) probability were developed using Cox proportional hazards regression internally validated by c-index. A web tool powered by JavaScript was developed to calculate the survival probability. Results Median OS was 6.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6–7.2 months). Management involved concurrent chemoradiation (34%), RT alone (42%), and chemo alone (2.3%). Twenty-one percent of patients did not receive treatment beyond surgical intervention. Age, performance status, extent of resection, chemotherapy, and RT administration were all significant independent predictors of OS. Patients <80 years old who received RT had a significant survival advantage, regardless of extent of resection (hazard ratio range from 0.22 to 0.60, CI 0.15–0.95). A nomogram was constructed from all 729 patients (Harrell’s Concordance Index = 0.78 [CI 0.71–0.84]) with a second nomogram based on subgroup analysis of the 452 patients who underwent RT (Harrell’s Concordance Index = 0.81 [CI 0.70–0.90]). An online calculator based on both nomograms was generated for clinical use. Conclusions Two nomograms and accompanying web tool incorporating commonly captured clinical features were generated based on real-world data to optimize decision making in the clinic.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".