MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Progression-free survival and patterns of response in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NB) treated with irinotecan/temozolomide/dinutuximab/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (I/T/DIN/GM-CSFS) chemoimmunotherapy.

2022· article· en· W4281779393 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Lerman, Yimei Li, Meaghan Granger, Thomas F. Cash, Arhanti Sadanand, Katherine Somers, Aeesha Ranavaya, Michelle Choe, Jennifer H. Foster, Daniel A. Morgenstern, Margarida Rafael, Keri A. Streby, Rachel N. Zeno, Rajen Mody, Sahr Yazdani, Ami V. Desai, Margaret E. Macy, Suzanne Shusterman, Sara M. Federico, Rochelle Bagatell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemoimmunotherapyInternal medicineOncologyProgression-free survivalTemozolomideNeuroblastomaIrinotecanImmunotherapyCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10025 Background: Encouraging responses to chemoimmunotherapy with I/T/DIN/GM-CSF have been observed in trials for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory HR-NBL, but factors associated with response have not been identified and duration of response has not been assessed. We aimed to evaluate timing and duration of response among pts with relapsed HR-NBL treated with I/T/DIN/GM-CSF and identify factors associated with response. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of pts treated with I/T/DIN/GM-CSF. Eligibility criteria included: diagnosis of relapsed HR-NBL prior to age 30; objective response [OR; complete, partial, or minor response (CR, PR, or MR) by International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC)] or stable disease (SD) after initial therapy; receipt of I/T/DIN/GM-CSF for relapse or progression outside a clinical trial from 1/1/15-6/1/20. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with OR. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to determine progression-free survival (PFS). Results: We enrolled 143 pts with a median age at diagnosis of 51 months. Tumors were MYCN amplified in 52 (36%) and ALK was wild type in 73/94 (78% of tumors in which ALK status was known). 79 (55%) had received prior anti-GD2 therapy. I/T/DIN/GM-CSF comprised first relapse therapy in 96 pts (67%), second relapse therapy in 23 (16%) and subsequent therapy in 24 (17%). 70 (49%) achieved OR following I/T/DIN/GM-CSF therapy [29% CR, 15% PR, 5% MR], 30 (21%) achieved SD and 43 (30%) progressed. Median cycles received was 5 (range 1-31). 121 patients (85%) had their best response upon first disease evaluation. Later disease evaluations showed improved INRC classification in 14% of pts with initial SD, 33% with MR, and 41% with PR. Median time to OR was 2 months (range 1-21). Of the 105 relapse/progression events after starting I/T/DIN/GM-CSF (73% of pts), 59 (56%) occurred during therapy. Of the 42 pts who achieved CR with I/T/DIN/GM-CSF, 5 (12%) relapsed during I/T/DIN/GM-CSF and 17 (40%) relapsed after discontinuation. I/T/DIN/GM-CSF was discontinued in 83 pts (58%) due to suboptimal response or PD, and in 19 (13%) for toxicity. Median PFS among objective responders was 15.5 months. Among those in CR, median PFS after discontinuation of I/T/DIN/GM-CSF was 11.8 months (range 0.7-70.6). Multivariable models did not identify clinical or biologic factors associated with OR. Conclusions: 49% of pts receiving I/T/DIN/GM-CSF for relapsed HR-NBL achieved OR. Among responders, median response duration was 15.5 months. Pts with SD on first disease evaluation were unlikely to achieve OR, but > 1/3 of pts with MR/PR on first evaluation ultimately achieved CR. No identifiable clinical or biologic factors were associated with OR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207