MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101868054 · doi:10.1081/cnv-100103843

Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, Prednisone, and Etoposide (CHOPE) for Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Disease: CALGB 8856

2001· article· en· W2101868054 on OpenAlexaff
Eric P. Lester, Gina R. Petroni, Maurice Barcos, Jeffrey L. Johnson, Fred E. Millard, M. Robert Cooper, George Omura, E Frei, B. A. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Investigation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsVincristineMedicineProcarbazineEtoposideDacarbazinePrednisoneABVDInternal medicineVinblastineRegimenCyclophosphamideSurgeryGastroenterologyCohortChemotherapyOncologyUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin's disease (HD) may critically depend on dose intensity. Because mechlorethamine, Oncovin, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP), and Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) are not suitable for major dose escalation, we evaluated the activity and toxicity of combined cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and etoposide (CHOPE) in advanced HD, here used at conventional dose intensity, as a preparatory study prior to using this regimen at higher dose intensity. Ninety-two patients were treated with CHOPE (cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2, day 1; doxorubicin, 50 mg/m2, day 1; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m2, days 1 and 8; prednisone, 100 mg/day, days 1-5; and etoposide, 80 mg/m2, days 1, 2, and 3) every 21 days. All had advanced HD with no prior chemotherapy with 46% stage IV, 63% with B symptoms, and 57% with bulky disease (> 5 cm). Radiation and growth factor support were not permitted. Full-dose vincristine (not capped at maximum 2 mg/dose) was used in the first 33 patients. An initial cohort of 41 patients was treated with four cycles of CHOPE to evaluate safety and efficacy followed by four cycles of ABVD. A second cohort of 51 patients was treated with 6-8 cycles of CHOPE alone. Toxicity was generally acceptable and primarily hematologic, with neutrophils < 500 in 63% of cohort I and 90% of cohort II, and platelets < 25,000 in 7% of cohort I and 8% of cohort II. The long-term neurotoxicity of full-dose, high-intensity vincristine was acceptable and largely reversible. In cohort I, 92% of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) with four cycles of CHOPE and 85% were in CR after four additional cycles of ABVD. In cohort II, 77% achieved a CR with 6-8 cycles of CHOPE alone. FFS was 76% in cohort I and 59% in cohort II, with a median follow-up of 8.2 and 5.7 years, respectively. CHOPE, at conventional dose intensity as used here, is an effective first-line regimen for the treatment of advanced-stage HD and may warrant evaluation using higher doses of cyclophosphamide and etoposide with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer InvestigationSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207