Lenalidomide Combined With R-CHOP Overcomes Negative Prognostic Impact of Non–Germinal Center B-Cell Phenotype in Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Phase II Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lenalidomide has significant single-agent activity in relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We demonstrated that lenalidomide can be safely combined with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); this new combination is known as R2CHOP. The goal of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy of this combination in newly diagnosed DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were adults with newly diagnosed untreated stages II to IV CD20(+) DLBCL. Patients received lenalidomide 25 mg orally per day on days 1 through 10 with standard-dose R-CHOP every 21 days for six cycles. All patients received pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle and aspirin prophylaxis throughout. DLBCL molecular subtype was determined by tumor immunohistochemistry and classified as germinal center B-cell (GCB) versus non-GCB in the R2CHOP patients and 87 control patients with DLBCL from the Lymphoma Database who were treated with conventional R-CHOP. RESULTS: In all, 64 patients with DLBCL were enrolled, and 60 were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 98% (59 of 60) with 80% (48 of 60) achieving complete response. Event-free survival and overall survival (OS) rates at 24 months were 59% (95% CI, 48% to 74%) and 78% (95% CI, 68% to 90%), respectively. In R-CHOP patients, 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 28% versus 64% (P < .001) and 46% versus 78% (P < .001) in non-GCB DLBCL versus GCB DLBCL, respectively. In contrast, there was no difference in 24-month PFS or OS for R2CHOP patients on the basis of non-GCB and GCB subtype (60% v 59% [P = .83] and 83% v 75% [P = .61] at 2 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: R2CHOP shows promising efficacy in DLBCL. The addition of lenalidomide appears to mitigate a negative impact of non-GCB phenotype on patient outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".