MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399787615 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae064.441

LGG-50. POOR RESPONSE TO MEKI RE-INITIATION IN PEDIATRIC LOW-GRADE GLIOMA AFTER TREATMENT DISCONTINUATION. A PLGG TASKFORCE STUDY

2024· article· en· W4399787615 on OpenAlexaffabout
İnci Yaman Bajin, Robert Siddaway, Adrian Levine, Tara McKeown, Liana Nobre, Anirban Das, Julie Bennett, Vijay Ramaswamy, Annie Huang, Éric Bouffet, Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Dong Anh Khuong Quang, Jordan R. Hansford, Revathi Rajagopal, Nicholas G. Gottardo, Rachel Rowe, J. E. M. Dutton, Amanda Li, Sheila McThenia, Jason Fangusaro, Sébastien Perreault, Cynthia Hawkins, Uri Tabori

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuationMedicineGliomaInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG) exhibit dramatic objective response to treatment with MEKi (Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase inhibitors). Although the initial response to MEKi is promising, it is unknown whether it is safe to stop MEKi therapy and if the response to re-initiating MEKi would have the same impact. The study objective was to compare the first and second response to MEKi in patients with pLGG who stopped therapy and had further tumor progression. METHODS PLGG identified at neurooncology centers in Canada, Australia, and US, which were treated twice with MEKi were included. Second therapy was defined as MEKi upon progression for tumors where treatment was stopped. Response to MEKi between 2 treatments (MEKi1, MEKi2) were analyzed by using RANO criteria. RESULTS Mature data on 19 patients reveals a median patient age of 13 years (range 7–24), and the most common tumor location is hypothalamic/chiasmatic (89%). PLGG alterations include KIAA1549:BRAF fusion in 69%, NF1 in 21%, and other alterations in 10%. The overall response (minor and partial) to MEKi1 was 63% compared to 26% in MEKi2 (p=0.04). Furthermore, upon restarting MEKi2, 11% had further growth on therapy in contrast to none at MEKi1. MEKi1 resulted in average of 37% size decrease (range, 3%-98%), including 6 PLGG with over 50% response. In contrast, the average decrease to MEKi2 was 10% (range, 6%-40%, p=0.005), and none had >50% size reduction. Comparing each patient MEKi1 to MEKi2 revealed that initial response was superior to the second one in all PLGG. CONCLUSION These data suggest that the second response to MEKi is inferior when compared to initial therapy. Expansion of this cohort and biomarker correlates are ongoing. Biological insights are required for this observation, and careful consideration should be made for stopping MEKi, especially in strategic locations such as the optic pathway.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→