Phase III Randomized Multicenter Study of a Humanized Anti-CD33 Monoclonal Antibody, Lintuzumab, in Combination With Chemotherapy, Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Patients With Refractory or First-Relapsed Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lintuzumab (HuM195) is an unconjugated humanized murine monoclonal antibody directed against the cell surface myelomonocytic differentiation antigen CD33. In this study, the efficacy of lintuzumab in combination with induction chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy alone in adults with first relapsed or primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed or primary resistant AML (duration of first response, zero to 12 months) were randomly assigned to receive either mitoxantrone 8 mg/m(2), etoposide 80 mg/m(2), and cytarabine 1 g/m(2) daily for 6 days (MEC) in combination with lintuzumab 12 mg/m(2), or MEC alone. Overall response, defined as the rate of complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp), was the primary end point of the study, with additional analyses of survival time and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were randomly assigned from November 1999 to April 2001. The percent CR plus CRp with MEC plus lintuzumab was 36% v 28% in patients treated with MEC alone (P = .28). The overall median survival was 156 days and was not different in the two arms of the study. Apart from mild antibody infusion-related toxicities (fever, chills, and hypotension), no differences in chemotherapy-related adverse effects, including hepatic and cardiac dysfunction, were observed with the addition of lintuzumab to induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The addition of lintuzumab to salvage induction chemotherapy was safe, but did not result in a statistically significant improvement in response rate or survival in patients with refractory/relapsed AML.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".