Phase I trial of fludarabine, bortezomib and rituximab for relapsed and refractory indolent and mantle cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the hypothesis that bortezomib may potentiate fludarabine activity by inhibiting DNA repair, we designed a phase I trial using this combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed and refractory indolent and mantle cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes included 12 patients with follicular lymphoma, four with marginal zone lymphoma, three with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, three with mantle cell lymphoma and two with small lymphocytic/chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Fludarabine and bortezomib were escalated in cohorts of three patients. Rituximab was added to the maximum tolerated dose of fludarabine and bortezomib and added significant dose-limiting myelosuppression. The maximum tolerated dose was fludarabine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1-3, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 administered every 21 d. Clinical responses were observed in 11 patients, five of whom were refractory to their most recent treatment regimen. Six additional patients had stable disease for a median of 10 months (range 4-30+). Cumulative myelosuppression and neuropathy was observed. The combination of fludarabine, bortezomib, and rituximab appears to be an active regimen with manageable toxicity for relapsed 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 | 0.001 | 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".