First line chemotherapy in low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is a rare but curable disease. The incidence in Europe and North America is nearly 1.5 per 1000 live births but much higher rates are reported from Africa and Asia. The majority of the patients respond to evacuation of the uterus plus or minus chemotherapy, however, occasional patients will die. Patients are categorised into low or high risk groups using a variety of scoring systems. A large number of regimens are used worldwide in the management of low risk GTN; there are reports of 14 different regimens in the English literature. The choice of the regimen is usually dependent on geographic location, prior training and current experience with the specific regimen. Regimens have significant differences in the route of administration, hospitalisation and side effects and so have a bearing on healthcare cost. Patients are therefore exposed to different regimens with the potential for different response rates and different side effect profiles. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of first line chemotherapy in the treatment of low risk GTN. SEARCH STRATEGY: We electronically searched Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3 2008), MEDLINE and EMBASE in September 2008. We performed additional searching of online trial registers and conference proceedings. We cross examined article references to identify relevant papers not detected by the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) , quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs (cohort and case control studies (CCS)) for the treatment of low risk GTN. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review using a data extraction form. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the relative risk (RR) of individual trials. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met the review entry criteria (n = 769). There were four RCTs and four CCS. Six different treatment regimens were identified; weekly methotrexate, 5-day methotrexate, 8-day methotrexate-folinic acid, "pulsed" dactinomycin, 5-day dactinomycin and the combination of methotrexate and dactinomycin. "Pulsed" dactinomycin was superior to weekly methotrexate in achieving primary cure without significantly increasing toxicity (three studies, RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.17, n = 392) . Eight-day methotrexate-folinic acid did not show significant advantage over 5-day methotrexate both in reducing toxicity or primary cure rate (two studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, n = 169). The combination of methotrexate-dactinomycin resulted in significantly increased toxicity without significantly improving primary cure rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence from the included RCTs, the authors conclude that "pulsed" dactinomycin is superior to weekly parenteral methotrexate at the reported dosages. However, the authors believe that rigorously designed, multicentred, randomised double-blind trials are required to evaluate other combinations of chemotherapy regimens, most importantly "pulsed" dactinomycin with the widely used 8-day methotrexate-folinic acid.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".