MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cyclophosphamide and fludarabine (CF) in advanced indolent lymphoma: Results from the ECOG/CALGB intergroup E1496 trial

2007· article· en· W2246539308 on OpenAlexaff
H. S. Hochster, Edie Weller, Randy D. Gascoyne, Thomas M. Ryan, Thomas M. Habermann, Leo I. Gordon, Stanley R. Frankel, SJ Horning

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCyclophosphamideFludarabineVincristineGastroenterologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRandomizationPrednisoneSurgeryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8004 Background: To determine optimal induction and the role of maintenance, the E1496 study randomized patients (pts) to induction CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) versus CF (cyclophosphamide 1 G/m2 d1, fludarabine 20 mg/m2 d1–5 every 28 d) for 2 cycles beyond best response (maximum 8). Responding and stable pts were secondarily randomized to MR (375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 every 6 months for 2 years [yr]) or observation (OBS). Methods: Due to early deaths the CF arm was closed to accrual with 115 pts randomized to CF and 119 pts to CVP (thereafter all pts were assigned to CVP prior to maintenance randomization). The results presented here compare the outcome of CF patients with the subset of E1496 pts randomized to CVP (CVPR). Results: Median follow-up on pts randomized to induction is 6.5 yr. Toxic deaths occurred in 8 (7%) CF pts during induction and 4 additional deaths (1 OBS, 3 MR) occurred among the 69 (6%) CF pts randomized to MR or OBS. Causes of death were infection (9), liver failure (2), CNS gliosis (1). CF pts received a median of 5 cycles compared to 7 cycles for CVPR. The CR rate was 51% vs 22% (p=0.00001) and the PR rate was 35% vs 55% for CF vs. CVPR, respectively. Four-yr PFS for CF vs. CVPR was 49% vs 45% (p=0.19) and OS was 66% vs. 81% (p=0.12), respectively. Of 45 CF deaths, 23 (51%) occurred without lymphoma progression compared to 5 (13%) of 38 CVPR deaths (p=0.0004). More than 90% of CF patients randomized to maintenance achieved protocol-defined minimal residual disease compared with 64% CVPR pts. Maintenance therapy had no impact on 2 yr PFS for the 67 evaluable randomized CF pts, which was 74% for MR vs. 73% for OBS (p=0.19). In contrast, 2 yr PFS was 73% for MR and 42% for OBS in randomized CVPR pts (p=0.004). Survival at 2 yr for MR vs OBS was: CF 79% vs 91% (p=0.19) compared with CVP 98% vs 93% (p=0.21). Conclusions: Induction with CF results in higher CR and miminal residual disease rates than CVP. However, gains in remission quality with CF (in the dose and schedule used here) were offset by early and late deaths in the absence of progressive lymphoma. In E1496, the benefit of MR was influenced by the induction chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→