Event‐free survival in relapsed and refractory rhabdomyosarcoma treated on cooperative group phase II trials: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel therapies are needed for relapsed and refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (RRMS). Phase II clinical trials in RRMS have typically utilized radiologic response as the primary activity endpoint, an approach that poses several limitations in RRMS. In this analysis, we aimed to estimate an event-free survival (EFS) endpoint for RRMS that could be used as a benchmark for future studies. PROCEDURE: We performed a retrospective study of patients with RRMS enrolling on 13 single-agent phase II Children's Oncology Group and legacy group trials from 1997 to 2016. All included trials used radiographic response as their primary activity endpoint. Six-month EFS was estimated from time of trial enrollment with 95% confidence intervals. Clinical characteristics, including trial of enrollment, sex, age, race, histology, number of prior chemotherapies, and radiographic response were evaluated for their impact on 6-month EFS. RESULTS: We identified 175 patients across 13 trials. The 6-month EFS was 16.8% (11.6%-22.8%). No differences were seen in 6-month EFS based on age, sex, race, or histology. There were nonsignificant trends toward improved 6-month EFS for patients with less than or equal to two prior lines of therapy versus higher than two, for patients enrolled on trials that achieved their primary radiographic response endpoint versus trials that did not, and for patients who achieved complete or partial response compared to those achieving stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of RRMS enrolled on single-agent phase II trials is poor. This pooled 6-month EFS of RRMS on single-agent trials may be used as a RRMS-specific benchmark for future single-agent phase II trials.
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 | 0.052 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".