Utility of subsequent conventional dose chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory transplant-eligible patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma failing platinum-based salvage chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 60% of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) do not respond to second-line (salvage) chemotherapy and hence are not offered autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). The utility of further salvage chemotherapy in an attempt to proceed with AHCT remains undefined. The authors reviewed 201 patients with DLBCL relapsed/refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy who received first-line salvage chemotherapy containing cis-platinum. Of the 120 non-responders to first-line platinum-based salvage chemotherapy, 73 received second-line salvage chemotherapy. The response rate to second-line salvage chemotherapy was 14%. Factors predicting lack of response were progression on primary therapy (p = 0.007), abnormal lactate dehydrogenase findings (p = 0.0027) and tumor bulk (p = 0.013) at second progression. Eight patients who responded received AHCT and appeared to have comparable survival to those transplanted after one salvage regimen. The authors conclude that the utility of second-line salvage chemotherapy is low, and that it is best reserved for patients demonstrating initial anthracycline sensitivity and low tumor burden.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".