LOCL-16 IMPACT OF MGMT PROMOTER METHYLATION STATUS ON TUMOR DYNAMICS DURING WEEKLY ADAPTIVE RADIOTHERAPY FOR GLIOBLASTOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE Adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy (RT) on a 1.5T-MR-Linac using reduced clinical target volumes (CTV) of 5mm instead of the 15mm standard for glioblastoma (GBM) is currently being evaluated on the UNITED clinical trial (NCT04726397). We explored the morphological changes that occur during adaptive RT with concurrent temozolomide between tumors with MGMT promotor methylation (MGMT-m) vs. unmethylation (MGMT-um). METHODS Thirty patients with IDH-wildtype GBMs were treated with 60Gy in 30 (n=12) or 40Gy in 15 fractions (n=18) (Fx). The CTV included a 5mm expansion on the gross tumor volume (GTV) +/- FLAIR hyperintense areas-at-risk and a 3mm planning target volume. Planning was performed on a pre-treatment reference MRI (FxRef) followed by weekly on-line adaptive re-planning at Fx1, Fx6, etc. acquired on the MR-Linac. Interim fractions were image-guided by pre-beam-on onboard MRI. The GTV/CTVs were quantified by their absolute volumes, volumes relative to the FxRef and the maximum linear distance from the edges of the reference contour to the weekly adapted contours (migration distance, dmig). MGMT promoter methylation status was explored as a fixed effect in a linear mixed statistical model. RESULTS Weekly median changes in GTV relative to FxRef in MGMT-um tumors (n=12) were 10.3%, 9.2%, 10.6%, 14.5%, 18.0% and 17.3%, respectively, while for MGMT-m (n=18) were 3.4%, 0.0%, -8.6%, -11.3%, -11.3% and -5.6% (p=0.021). Between FxRef and Fx1, the GTV increased by over 10% in 58% of MGMT-um tumors vs. 33% of MGMT-m tumors. Similar significant trends were observed with the CTVs. MGMT-um tumors had significantly larger dmig compared to tumors with MGMT-m (median 9.6mm vs. 5.8mm, respectively (p=0.018)). CONCLUSIONS MGMT-um GBM exhibited significant changes in morphology and migration distance between the time of treatment planning to the first treatment fraction, as well as throughout a course of RT. In this population, our results support a greater frequency of imaging and plan adaptation when applying personalized reduced CTV margins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".