Phase 2 trial of rituximab plus hyper‐CVAD alternating with rituximab plus methotrexate‐cytarabine for relapsed or refractory aggressive mantle cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma has a very poor prognosis. The authors evaluated the response rates and survival times of patients treated with an intense regimen known to be effective against untreated aggressive mantle cell lymphoma: rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) alternating with rituximab plus methotrexate-cytarabine. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, phase 2 study, patients received this combination for 6 to 8 cycles. Twenty-nine patients were evaluable for response. RESULTS: The median number of cycles received was 5 (range, 1-7 cycles), and the overall response rate was 93% (45% complete response [CR] or CR unconfirmed [CRu] and 48% partial response [PR]). All 5 patients previously resistant to treatment had a response (1 CR, 4 PR), and both patients whose disease did not change in response to prior therapy had PRs. Toxic events occurring in response to the 104 cycles given included neutropenic fever (11%), grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (74%), and grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (63%). There were no deaths from toxicity. At a median follow-up of 40 months (range, 5-48 months), the median failure-free survival time was 11 months with no plateau in the survival curve. CONCLUSIONS: This combination chemotherapy was effective for refractory/relapsed mantle cell 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".