IMG-99. Volumetric tumor growth rate (TGR) modeling predicts clinical outcomes in patients with Grade 2, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 mutant (mIDH1/2) glioma receiving vorasidenib or placebo in the Phase 3 INDIGO trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract TGR shows emerging utility as a quantitative measure for assessing treatment efficacy in glioma. We evaluated three distinct TGR models using volumetric data from patients with mIDH1/2 diffuse glioma from the Phase 3 INDIGO trial (NCT04164901) to determine their predictive value for clinical outcomes. Data from the INDIGO trial comparing vorasidenib (n=168) with placebo (n=163) were analyzed. We assessed tumor growth patterns after treatment using: (1) a linear regression model (mL/6 months); (2) a bi-exponential model with growth parameter “g”; and (3) velocity of diametric expansion (VDE; mm/year). Individual TGRs were calculated during the first 6-month on-treatment period and correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next intervention (TTNI). Patients receiving vorasidenib demonstrated substantially lower on-treatment individual TGRs, compared with placebo, across all models (linear model: –0.037 vs 1.094 mL/6 months; bi-exponential: reduced “g” parameter, P<0.0001; VDE: –0.142 vs 2.280 mm/year). Quantile analysis revealed that patients with lower individual TGRs had notably better PFS and TTNI outcomes (P<0.0001). In Cox regression analysis, patient-specific TGR during first 6 months of treatment was strongly associated with both PFS (HR 1.046; 95% CI 1.026, 1.067; P<0.0001) and TTNI (HR 1.051; 95% CI 1.031, 1.072; P<0.0001). Holding other variables as constant, multivariate analysis identified treatment with vorasidenib versus placebo, an oligodendroglioma versus astrocytoma histological subtype, and, most notably, lower versus higher baseline tumor volume, as strong determinants for reduced individual TGRs. These findings demonstrate that individual TGRs are a robust quantitative measure for predicting outcomes in mIDH1/2 glioma. During the initial 6-month period, TGR was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes, supporting the utility of TGR as a potential surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and for treatment decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".