Gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin in patients with recurrent or refractory aggressive histology B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine has been shown to have activity as a single agent in lymphoma and, when combined with cisplatin, is effective therapy for a number of solid tumors. The authors wished to determine the response rate and toxicity of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin for recurrent or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). METHODS: Patients with recurrent or refractory diffuse large B-cell NHL or variants (REAL classification), measurable disease, and one previous chemotherapy regimen were eligible. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on Days 1 and 8, dexamethasone 40 mg orally on Days 1-4, and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) i.v. on Day 1 (GDP), every 21 days as an outpatient. The primary end point was a response after two cycles. Patients could then proceed to stem cell transplantation (SCT) or receive up to six treatment cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-one eligible patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. The median age of the patients was 57 years (range, 18-84 years) and most had diffuse large-cell lymphoma. After 2 cycles, there were 8 complete responses (CR; 16%) and 17 partial responses (PR; 33%). There was an overall response rate (RR) of 49% (95% confidence interval = 37-63%). The RR afer completion of all protocol chemotherapy (including those who received > 2 cycles of GDP) was 53% (11 CR, 16 PR). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 33% and 39% of patients, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 24% and 4% of patients, respectively. Seven patients (14%) experienced febrile neutropenia. Of the 35 patients < 66 years, 22 (63%) proceeded to SCT. CONCLUSIONS: GDP is an active regimen in B-cell NHL and can be administered with acceptable toxicity to outpatients. A Phase III trial comparing GDP with standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy is now ongoing through the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.
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) | 0.000 | 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".