MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313484958 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2426118/v1

Dose-dependent efficacy of bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma

2023· preprint· en· W4313484958 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jawad Melhem, Ali Tahir, Eirena Calabrese, Inga Granovskaya, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Arjun Sahgal, Mary Jane Lim-Fat, James Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHumber River Regional HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBevacizumabRegimenProportional hazards modelInternal medicineProgression-free survivalGlioblastomaRetrospective cohort studyLog-rank testOncologySurvival analysisOverall survivalSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Bevacizumab (BEV), at a standard dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks is associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) but no improvement in overall survival (OS) in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). Few studies have examined the potential dose-dependent efficacy of BEV. In Ontario, reimbursement for the costs of BEV varies, and as a result, our practice began to routinely use lower dose regimens. The main aim of this study was to ensure that there was no harm to patients who received the low dose protocol. Methods A single-center retrospective study of patients given BEV for rGBM between 2015–2020 was performed. Clinical and treatment data including BEV dose regimen (SD [10 mg/kg every 2 weeks] vs LD [5 mg/kg every 2–3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks]) received at the time of rGBM diagnosis were captured. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) on BEV were compared using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Log-rank test was used to compare potential predictive factors. Cox regression model was performed for multivariable analysis of OS and PFS. Results A total of 96 patients were included with a median follow-up duration of 6.84 months (range 1.12–50.63 months) from the date of the first infusion. The LD group consisted of 55 of the 96 patients. By virtue of funding mechanisms for BEV, the median age in the LD group was significantly higher (62 vs 54 years p = 0.009). There was no difference in MGMT status between the 2 groups (p = 0.60). Eight patients received lomustine with BEV (3 from the SD and 5 from the LD. The LD group had prolonged median PFS (5.89 months versus 3.22 months; p = 0.0112) and OS (10.23 months versus 6.28 months; p = 0.0010). Multivariable analysis including the dose of BEV, the extent of resection, gender, and age revealed that standard dose of BEV, subtotal resection, and female sex were associated with worse overall survival. Nine patients in the SD group vs 18 patients in the LD group reported an adverse event related to BEV. Conclusions For patients with recurrent GBM, we found that a low dose regimen of BEV was associated with prolonged OS and PFS compared to the standard dose regimen. Lower dose schedules may be a better and more cost-effective option for patients with rGBM. Lower costs might provide more equitable access to this very important palliative drug.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→