Prospective Randomized Study Comparing MEMID with a Chop-Like Regimen in Elderly Patients with Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This multicenter phase III study compared the MEMID regimen (mitoxantrone, VP16, methylglyoxal, ifosfamide and dexamethasone) with CEOP, a CHOP-like regimen (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, vincristine and prednisone), in elderly patients (> or =65 years) with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). METHODS: One hundred and forty-nine patients were eligible, 72 in the MEMID arm and 77 in the CEOP arm. The primary endpoint was to compare overall survival (OS) between groups, and secondary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS), response rate and toxicity. RESULTS: Neutropenia (p < 10(-5)), anemia (p < 10(-5)) and thrombocytopenia (p = 0.0006) were significantly more frequent in patients who received MEMID. We observed an objective response rate of 55.5% in the MEMID arm and 64.9% in the CEOP arm (p = 0.24). The median OS and EFS were 15.4 and 8.5 months in the MEMID arm, and 20.3 and 10.5 months in the CEOP arm (p = 0.59 and 0.47), respectively. The median EFS was 15.4 months in the MEMID arm and 20.3 months in the CEOP arm (p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: The increased toxicity without survival benefit confirms the superiority of CHOP and CHOP-like regimens for elderly patient with aggressive NHL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".