Outcomes of both abbreviated hyper‐<scp>CVAD</scp> induction followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and conventional chemotherapy for mantle cell lymphoma: a 10‐year single‐centre experience with literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients diagnosed with Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 01 January 2000 and 31 December 2009. Eighty eight patients with MCL were included in the analysis of whom 46 (52%) received abbreviated Hyper-CVAD (a total of two cycles; with addition of Rituximab since 2005) with an intention of proceeding to autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT), with a median age of 58 years. Response rate to induction at auto-HCT time was 89% and complete response was 61%. Forty four patients received an auto-HCT with a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 31.2% and 62.5%, respectively. There were 42 nontransplant eligible patients with a median age of 72 years, and 5-year PFS and OS were 0.0% and 39.9%, respectively. The median survival and PFS in the auto-HCT eligible group were 68 and 33 months, compared to 32 and 12 months in nontransplant eligible group, without a plateauing of the survival curves in either group. Treatment-related mortality in the auto-HCT eligible group was 10.9% (n = 5); two patients died during R-Hyper-CVAD and 3 (6.8%) experienced transplant-related mortality. An abbreviated R-Hyper-CVAD-based induction strategy followed by consolidative auto-HCT is feasible and provides moderate potential of long-term survival. Further research to define risk-adapted strategies; to optimize disease control, is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".