MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Radiation dose escalation and local control for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma on ARST1431: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group

2024· article· en· W4399304891 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Jackson, Wei Xue, Abha A. Gupta, Amira Qumseya, Roshni Dasgupta, Christine E. Hill‐Kayser, Aaron C. Spalding, David A. Rodeberg, Douglas J. Harrison, Rajkumar Venkatramani, Suzanne L. Wolden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRhabdomyosarcomaRadiation oncologyOncologyRadiation therapyInternal medicineNuclear medicineSarcomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10007 Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate local failure (LF) rates for patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (IR-RMS) treated on the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) ARST1431 clinical trial. To improve local control, the radiation therapy (RT) dose was increased to 59.4 Gy for patients with tumors > 5cm at diagnosis and residual gross disease at the time of RT. Methods: The297 patients randomized on ARST1431 were included. LF was defined as progression or relapse at the primary tumor site. Gray’s test was used to compare the cumulative incidence of LF across variables. Results: There was a trend for lower 3-year LF in group III patients with fusion-positive disease (11.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5%-21.1%) compared to patients with fusion-negative disease (21.8%, 95% CI 15.8%-28.4%), p = 0.09.There was no difference in the 3-year LF rate for patients who underwent proton RT (16.3%, 95% CI 9.6%-24.7%) compared to photon RT (16.2%, 95% CI 10.2%-23.6%;), p = 0.8. The 3-year LF rate for all patients with tumors > 5cm at diagnosis (24.9%, 95% CI 18.6%-31.7%) was significantly higher than that of patients with tumors ≤5cm at diagnosis (9.9%, 95% CI 5.2%-16.4%), p < 0.01. Of 81 patients with tumors > 5cm and residual gross disease after induction chemotherapy who went on to receive RT, 62 (76.5%) received the protocol-specified boost to 59.4 Gy. Patients who received the boost had a 3-year LF rate of 32.1% (95% CI 20.1%-44%), while patients who did not undergo an RT boost had a 3-year LF rate of 16.1% (95% CI 3.8%-36.2%), p = 0.3. For patients with group III, non-parameningeal disease, those who underwent delayed primary excision (DPE) had a significantly lower LF rate compared to those who did not undergo DPE (3-year rate of 5.6% (95% CI 1.4%-14.0%) vs. 22.0% (95% CI 14.5-30.7%), p < 0.01). Conclusions: On ARST1431, larger tumors ( > 5cm at diagnosis) were associated with increased risk of LF. Dose escalation to 59.4 Gy did not improve local control for patients with tumors > 5cm at diagnosis with residual gross disease at the time of RT. For a select group of non-parameningeal, group III patients who underwent DPE followed by RT, local control was improved. Clinical trial information: NCT02567435 .

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→