High efficacy with five days schedule of oral fludarabine phosphate and cyclophosphamide in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multicentre single-arm study testing the efficacy and toxicity of the oral combination of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) over 5 d in 75 patients with untreated B cell-chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Oral FC demonstrated high efficacy with overall (OR) and complete response (CR) rates of 80% and 53%, respectively. Out of the 30 CR patients studied for Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) using 4-colour flow-cytometry and the 22 using Clonospecific polymerase chain reaction, 22 (66%) and 16 (68%), respectively, were MRD negative. Median survival and median treatment-free interval had not been reached at 7 years of follow-up. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 years. Toxicity was acceptable, with 52% and 16% of National Cancer Institute grade 3/4 neutropenia and infections, respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity was mild. Oral FC demonstrated a high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile and may be considered as the standard first line treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".