CP-07. FEASIBILITY, TOLERABILITY AND FIRST EXPERIENCE OF INTRACYSTIC TREATMENT WITH PEGINTERFERON ALFA-2A IN PATIENTS WITH CYSTIC CRANIOPHARYNGIOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Craniopharyngiomas (CP) is a life-long chronic disease predominantly affecting young children. Consequently, the developing brain is particularly sensitive to therapies such as surgery or radiotherapy. Hence, therapies allowing to avoid or delay intensive therapies provide substantial benefit. Intracystic injection of interferon alfa-2a or -2 has emerged as frequently applied treatment based on advantageous risk-benefit ratio with good effects leading to cyst shrinkage. Unfortunately, the original drug is worldwide no longer available. To overcome this shortage we performed an elaborate pharmacological review, identifying peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys®) as best currently available alternative drug for intracystic treatment of CP patients. METHODS Within an international collaboration we set up a novel protocol for intracystic peginterferon treatment. Based on the protocol five patients were treated with intracystic peginterferon alfa-2a for cystic CP. After initial CP cyst-aspiration peginterferon alfa-2a was injected once per week via an Ommaya reservoir. One treatment course was six weeks accompanied by regular response assessment with MRI (3-6 weeks). Side effect, safety and therapeutic effects were analyzed. RESULTS Age of patients ranged from 4 to 54 years (4 pediatric patients <12 years, 1 adult patient). Intracystic therapy with peginterferon alfa-2a was generally well tolerated throughout the treatment course and resulted in cyst shrinkage in all cases. Cyst leakage was observed in one case highlighting the importance of testing cyst permeability before starting intracystic treatment courses. CONCLUSIONS Taken together, intracystic treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a was feasible and effective being comparable to prior intracystic interferon protocols for cystic CP being of potential clinical benefit for this severely affected patient cohort. Our experience in this small cohort indicated the potential of this treatment modality, which should be further investigated within a larger trial cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".