ACTR-11. SECOND INTERIM AND 1ST MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF THE EORTC RANDOMIZED PHASE III INTERGROUP CATNON TRIAL ON CONCURRENT AND ADJUVANT TEMOZOLOMIDE IN ANAPLASTIC GLIOMA WITHOUT 1p/19q CODELETION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The 1st interim analysis of the CATNON trial showed benefit from adjuvant (adj) temozolomide (TMZ) on overall survival (OS) but remained inconclusive about concurrent (conc) TMZ. A 2nd interim analysis was planned after 356 events. METHODS The 2x2 factorial design phase III CATNON trial randomized 751 patients with newly diagnosed non-codeleted anaplastic glioma to either 59.4 Gy radiotherapy (RT) alone; the same RT with concTMZ; the same RT and 12 cycles of adjTMZ or the same RT with both concTMZ and adjTMZ (doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31442–3). MGMT promoter methylation (MGMTmeth) status was re-assessed with the Infinium Methylation EPIC Beadchip. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH) mutation (mt) status was assessed with a glioma targeted next generation sequencing panel. At the time of molecular analysis, a 3rd database lock was done. RESULTS At the 2nd IDMC (median follow-up 56 months, 356 events observed) the hazard ratio (HR) for OS adjusted for stratification factors after concTMZ was 0.968 (99.1% CI 0.73, 1.28. An IDHmt was found in 368 of 528 assessed cases (70%). After median follow-up of 67 months and with 367 events observed median OS was 19 mo (95% CI 16.3, 22.3) in IDHwt tumors and 116 mo (95% CI 82.0, 116.6) in IDHmt tumors. IDHmt was predictive of benefit from adjTMZ (IDHmt HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.32, 0.67; IDHwt: HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73, 1.44; interaction test p = 0.002) and from concTMZ (HR(IDHmt HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.43, 0.91; IDHwt: HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83, 1.63; interaction test p = 0.017). MGMTmeth was found in 401 of 478 assessed cases (69%), interaction tests for concTMZ and adjTMZ did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS In IDHmt tumors adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide improves survival, no effect was observed in IDHwt tumors. Further follow-up and molecular analyses are required for mature analyses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".