Rhabdoid Tumor of the Kidney and Soft Tissues: Results from National Wilms Tumor Study‐5 and Children's Oncology Group Study AREN0321
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: National Wilms Tumor Study-5 (NWTS-5) and AREN0321 evaluated the outcomes of children with rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (RTK) and malignant rhabdoid tumor of soft tissues (MRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with RTK were enrolled prospectively on NWTS-5 (1995-2002) and treated with carboplatin and etoposide alternating with cyclophosphamide (Regimen RTK). Patients with RTK or MRT were enrolled on AREN0321 (2005-2012) and received vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide alternating with carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (Regimens UH-1 or dose-reduced Revised UH-1). We report event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) from each study. RESULTS: Thirty patients received Regimen RTK on NWTS-5; on AREN0321, 20 received UH-1 and 19 received Revised UH-1. Patient and disease characteristics were statistically similar between studies. Patients on AREN0321 had significantly improved EFS and OS compared to those on NWTS-5 (4-year EFS = 23.1% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.020; 4-year OS = 30.6% vs. 20.0%; p = 0.014), mostly driven by patients with Stage I/II disease (p = 0.05). Median time to an event was 3.6 months on NWTS-5 compared to 7.2 months on AREN0321. There were no differences in EFS or OS by revised versus original Regimen UH-1 on AREN0321, or by renal versus extra-renal primary disease when the studies were pooled. CONCLUSIONS: The more intensive treatment regimen used on AREN0321 improved EFS and OS overall, a result driven by patients with Stage I/II disease. Despite this improvement, outcomes for patients with rhabdoid tumor remain unsatisfactory and there is a need for novel therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".