MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060594675 · doi:10.1002/cncr.21587

Similar response rates and superior early progression‐free survival with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin salvage therapy compared with carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan salvage therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for recurrent or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma

2005· article· en· W2060594675 on OpenAlexaff
John Kuruvilla, Tracy Nagy, Melania Pintilie, Richard Tsang, Armand Keating, Michael Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtoposideCarmustineMelphalanGemcitabineSalvage therapyCytarabineAutologous stem-cell transplantationInternal medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationSurgeryChemotherapyDexamethasoneOncologyTransplantationUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the response rates, ability to mobilize autologous hematopoietic (peripheral blood) stem cells (PBSCs), and progression-free survival (PFS) after second-line chemotherapy with either gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) or carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (mini-BEAM) followed by high-dose therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for patients with recurrent or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: The outcomes of 68 consecutive patients who were referred for salvage therapy (34 patients received mini-BEAM, and 34 patients received GDP) were compared retrospectively. Patients received mini-BEAM as inpatient treatment every 3-4 weeks, whereas GDP was administered on an outpatient basis every 3 weeks. Responding patients proceeded to stem cell mobilization, followed by high dose etoposide and melphalan, and ASCT. Patients who had disease bulk at recurrence that measured > 5 cm received involved-field radiation post-ASCT. RESULTS: The response rate to GDP prior to ASCT (complete responses, unconfirmed complete responses, and partial responses) was 62% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 45-78%) compared with 68% (95% CI, 52-83%) for mini-BEAM (P = 0.61). After mobilizing chemotherapy, the proportion of patients for whom the target PBSC number of > or = 5 x 10(6) CD34-positive cells/kg was obtained was 97% after GDP and 57% after MB (P = 0.0003). More patients completed collection with a single apheresis procedure after GDP than after mini-BEAM (73% vs. 36%; P = 0.004), and fewer patients in the GDP group required bone marrow harvesting to proceed to ASCT. After a median follow-up of 1.8 years after ASCT, PFS was significantly better for patients who received GDP compared with patients who received mini-BEAM (74% vs. 35% at 1.5 yrs, respectively; P = 0.005). Overall survival at 1.5 years was 91% after GDP and 82% after mini-BEAM (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Although this was a retrospective analysis, response to GDP and early PFS after ASCT compared favorably with mini-BEAM salvage chemotherapy. Based on these data, the authors believe that a Phase III trial comparing GDP with mini-BEAM or other platinum-containing regimens is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207