Impact of central nervous system (<scp>CNS</scp>) prophylaxis on the incidence and risk factors for <scp>CNS</scp> relapse in patients with diffuse large <scp>B</scp>‐cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era: a single centre experience and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial with even less evidence in the era of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy. We reviewed the impact of CNS prophylaxis in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP at a tertiary care centre over a 7-year period. CNS prophylaxis was recommended for 'higher risk' patients and consisted of intrathecal methotrexate and/or high-dose methotrexate. Of 214 patients 12·6% received CNS prophylaxis. With a median follow-up of 27 months, eight patients (3·7%) developed CNS relapse (75% isolated to the CNS and 62·5% as parenchymal brain disease) at a median time of 17 months. Patients who did not receive CNS prophylaxis had lower events (2·7%) than those who did (11·1%). Half of the CNS relapses occurred in testicular lymphoma patients, 75% of whom had received CNS prophylaxis. In multivariate analysis, testicular involvement was the only significant prognostic factor for CNS relapse (hazard ratio 33·5, P < 0·001). In conclusion, CNS relapse in DLBCL appears to present as a later, more isolated parenchymal event and at a lower rate in the rituximab era compared with historical data. R-CHOP may negate the need for CNS prophylaxis with the exception of testicular lymphoma.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".