2′‐chlorodeoxyadenosine (2‐CdA) as salvage therapy for Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). results of the LCH‐S‐98 protocol of the histiocyte society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prospective phase II Histiocyte Society study, LCH-S-98, evaluated the efficacy of 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine (2-CdA) monotherapy as salvage therapy in Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH). PROCEDURES: Patients with poor and intermediate risk LCH not responsive to initial therapy and patients with low-risk chronic recurrent LCH were evaluated for response and survival after treatment with 2-6 courses of 2-CdA. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (55%) had involvement of risk organs; lung, liver, spleen, or hematopoetic system (RO+), 37 (45%) were RO-. Twenty-two percent of RO+ patients had a good response while 44% progressed, 62% RO- patients responded, and 11% progressed. Two-year predicted survival is 48% for RO+, 97% for RO- patients, 100% for RO+ patients reactivating in non-risk organs, 67% for RO- patients reactivating in risk organs. Two-year pSU for the entire group is 68%. Seventy-three percent of patients with a poor response to 2-CdA died. Sixty-five percent patients >2 years old and 30% <2 years old survived. There was a median of 26 months from diagnosis to 2-CdA for responders compared to a median of 5 months for non-responders. Twenty-one percent of patients treated <12 months and 57% treated >12 months from diagnosis responded. CONCLUSION: 2-CdA is active in LCH. It produces a higher response rate in patients with low-risk multisystem or multifocal bone disease than those with risk organ involvement. "Risk" patients who fail to respond to 2-CdA have a high mortality. Patient age at 2-CdA therapy and length of time from diagnosis to 2-CdA significantly affect response and survival.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".