MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980200289 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.1803.1803

Front-Line Therapy with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) Followed by 2 Years of Rituximab Maintenance for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Is Associated with Excellent Outcomes and Improved Progression-Free Survival (PFS) In Comparison to No Maintenance

2010· article· en· W2980200289 sur OpenAlexaff
Alden A. Moccia, Paul Hoskins, Richard Klasa, Kerry J. Savage, Tamara Shenkier, Graham W. Slack, Randy D. Gascoyne, Joseph M. Connors, Laurie H. Sehn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRituximabMaintenance therapyPopulationFollicular lymphomaVincristineInternal medicineHazard ratioSurgeryInterim analysisChemotherapy regimenPrednisoneCyclophosphamideOncologyCancerChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalLymphoma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1803 Introduction: The recently reported PRIMA trial was the first to evaluate the benefit of rituximab maintenance (R-maintenance) following first-line immunochemotherapy in FL (Salles G, ASCO 2010). In that trial, the majority of patients (pts) received R-CHOP induction and R-maintenance was administered bi-monthly for 2 years, yielding a substantial benefit in PFS. We assessed outcomes in an unselected population of chemotherapy-naïve pts with FL treated in British Columbia (BC) with R-CVP followed by observation or 2 years of R-maintenance. Patients and Methods: Since 2004, the standard treatment policy in BC has recommended 8 cycles of R-CVP as first-line systemic therapy for symptomatic advanced stage FL. Since 2006, R-maintenance (rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV every 3 months for 2 years) has been recommended for pts achieving a complete (CR/CRu) or partial (PR) remission following induction therapy. Asymptomatic pts generally undergo a period of watchful waiting, with systemic therapy initiated only when clinically indicated. We performed a retrospective population-based analysis using the BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database and included all pts with FL who received first-line R-CVP between March 2004 and January 2010. Outcome of pts who received R-maintenance was compared to the group of pts who responded to R-CVP but did not receive maintenance (i.e. prior to routine maintenance policy). Primary endpoint was PFS, defined as the interval from the beginning of R-CVP to first progression, relapse or death from any cause. Pts who progressed while on R-CVP or did not achieve at least a PR were considered to have refractory lymphoma. Results: 251 pts were identified. Clinical characteristics at diagnosis were: median age 60 y (range 31–86 y), 58% male, 83% stage III/IV, 30% bulky disease ≥10cm, 20% B symptoms, 16% elevated LDH. FLIPI variables were retrievable on 95% pts: 27% low-risk, 29% intermediate-risk, 45% high-risk. Histology: 56% FL grade 1, 29% FL grade 2, 14% FL grade 3, 1% FL NOS. 48 pts (19%) were on observation before systemic treatment was initiated with a median time between diagnosis and first cycle of R-CVP of 19 m (range 4–130 m). At a median f/u of 36 m (range 0–74 m), 33 pts (13%) have died (24 from lymphoma, 3 from treatment toxicity, 6 from unrelated causes while in sustained remission). 27 pts (11%) had lymphoma refractory to R-CVP and an additional 8 pts (3%) failed to complete therapy (3 due to poor tolerance, 3 died from treatment toxicity, 2 died from unrelated causes). Pts with refractory disease were treated as follows: 6 purine analog-based regimens, 13 R-CHOP, 3 radiation therapy, 3 palliative care and 2 other chemotherapy regimens. Outcome of refractory pts was extremely poor, with a 3-year OS of 48%. 216/251 pts responded to R-CVP (ORR 86%: CR/CRu 44%, PR 37%, 5% detailed radiologic response not available). Following response to R-CVP, 59 pts were observed and 167 pts received R-maintenance. These 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics in terms of age, stage, gender and FLIPI score; however, median f/u was longer for observation pts compared to R-maintenance pts, 59m vs 34m. Eighteen pts (11%) developed progressive disease while receiving R-maintenance and within the subset of pts with available imaging studies for review, 23% pts in PR after R-CVP converted to CR/CRu while on R-maintenance. The 3-y PFS was significantly improved for pts receiving R-maintenance compared to pts on observation alone after having responded to R-CVP, 83% vs 62%, p=0.002 (see figure). The 3-y OS was similar in the 2 cohorts (93% vs. 93%, p=0.985). Conclusions: This population-based analysis confirms the benefit of R-maintenance following immunochemotherapy in pts with untreated FL. R-CVP followed by 2 years of R-maintenance is a well-tolerated and effective therapy with outcomes that compare favorably with more intensive combinations. Patients with lymphoma refractory to R-CVP have a dire prognosis; improved therapeutic approaches are needed for this high-risk subgroup. Disclosures: Connors: Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Sehn:Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations2
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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