MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2554311364 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.687.687

Response-Adapted Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (DLBCL)Based On Early [18F] FDG-PET Scanning: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (E3404)

2012· article· en· W2554311364 sur OpenAlexaff
Lode J. Swinnen, Hailun Li, Andrew Quon, Randy D. Gascoyne, Erik A. Ranheim, Thomas M. Habermann, Ranjana H. Advani, Brad S. Kahl, Sandra J. Horning

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaInternal medicineCHOPNuclear medicineStage (stratigraphy)OncologyRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 687 Background: A persistently positive PET scan after just a few cycles of therapy is predictive of a poor clinical outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Prior data suggested that about one third of patients remain PET positive after 2–4 cycles, with ≤ 20% 2 year progression-free survival (PFS) for such patients. A response-adapted strategy was studied in E3404 to test the hypothesis that an early treatment change to four cycles of R-ICE might reduce the treatment failure rate of patients whose PET scan remained positive after an initial 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Study Design: Previously untreated patients with DLBCL stage III, IV, or bulky II, with measurable disease, HIV negative, and with adequate organ reserve, were eligible. PET/CT scan was performed before treatment and again after 3 cycles of R-CHOP. A fourth cycle of R-CHOP was given while the scan was centrally reviewed and scored as either positive or negative for FDG-avid tumor by a single reviewer using criteria based on modifications of the Harmonization Criteria. Persistently PET-positive patients received 4 cycles of R-ICE, while PET-negative patients received 2 more cycles of R-CHOP, for a total of 6 cycles. PET/CT was performed again at the end of treatment. A ≥45% 2 year PFS for mid-treatment PET- positive patients was viewed as a promising result, with 88% power if 33 such patients were accrued. Total accrual of 99 patients was therefore planned. Results: Of 100 patients accrued, 78 were eligible; all but 1 ineligibility was based on central pathology review. Fifty-eight were male; median age was 62 years (20–74); 13% IPI 0–1, 31% IPI 2, 37% IPI 3, and 19% IPI 4–5. Seventy-four of 78 (95%) patients completed the first 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Of 72 patients continuing treatment, 67 (93%) completed protocol treatment: 83% of mid-treatment PET-positive and 93% of PET-negative patients. Of 74 patients undergoing mid-treatment PET scan, 12 (16%) were scored as positive, and 62 (84%) as negative. At the end of treatment, 13% were scored as positive, and 87% as negative. Two-year PFS, from the time of study entry, was 72% among all eligible patients. Two year PFS from the time of mid-treatment PET scan was 45% (90% CI, 21–67%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-positive, and 77% (90% CI 67–85%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-negative. The 80% confidence interval (corresponding to a test with a one-sided type I error of 10%) did not include the null hypothesis of 25%, implying that the results met the pre-specified threshold. Among all 78 eligible patients, 10 have died (13%); 5-year overall survival was 87% (90% CI 78–92%) Three-year overall survival was 67% (90% CI 40–84%) for mid-treatment PET-positive patients, and 93% (90% CI 85–97%) for mid-treatment PET-negative patients. Conclusions: The 2-year PFS for mid-treatment PET-positive patients met the threshold to be considered promising, but the confidence interval was wider than expected due to the small patient number. In addition, the inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mid-treatment PET scans as a binary variable in this study (studied and reported separately in Horning SJ et al. Blood 2010) implies that treatment modification based on early PET scanning should remain confined to clinical trials. Disclosures: Swinnen: Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Quon:Genentech: Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: stock, stock Other.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→