Latest clinical research in leptomeningeal disease (LMD)—a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is associated with poor survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is an urgent need for clinical research in this area to improve the outcomes. The purpose of this study is to summarize the areas of active clinical research in LMD, identify the knowledge gap, and suggest future research directions. METHODS: A narrative review of clinical trials in LMD was conducted based on a search in clinicatrials.gov using the search term "leptomeningeal" under "condition or disease". Clinical trials in patients with LMD arising from solid malignancy that were labelled as "not yet recruiting", "recruiting", "enrolling by invitation" or "active, not recruiting" were included. Studies which were deemed to have significant impact on future research direction in LMD were selected for discussion. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: A total of 38 clinical trials were included. Of these 38 trials, 19 are discussed in this review, with focus on their research questions and impact on future research directions. Most of the studies that were not selected for discussion focused on biomarker-driven interventions. Four key areas of research were identified, namely the (I) diagnosis, response assessment or molecular profiling of LMD (n=2); (II) advances in radiotherapy (n=3); (III) intrathecal treatment (n=13); (IV) novel drug carrier for systemic treatment (n=1). The research questions in the 19 discussed clinical trials included the tumour microenvironment of LMD, the role of novel molecular techniques in LMD, combination of radiotherapy with drugs, and cell-based immunotherapy. Among these 19 studies, 11 were phase 1 trials, 3 were phase 2 or phase 1/2 trials, 2 were phase 3 or phase 2/3 trials and the study phase was not reported in the remaining 3 studies. The existing knowledge gaps are discussed, including the lack of primary site-specific prognostic tools, cost-effectiveness studies, dedicated HRQoL assessment tools for LMD and sequencing of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The current clinical trials in LMD offer the promise to improve the diagnosis and treatment outcomes of patients with LMD. More research is needed to overcome the potential hurdles in the current treatment and bridge the knowledge gaps as identified in this review, to improve patients' quantity and quality of survival.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".