Differences in Quality of Life Between Bendamustine-Rituximab and R-CHOP/R-CVP in Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or Mantle Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously reported results of the phase III, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing bendamustine-rituximab (BR) with standard R-CHOP (rituximab/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone)/R-CVP (rituximab/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/prednisone) in previously untreated advanced indolent non-Hodgkin and mantle cell lymphomas. Here we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the trial. METHODS: HRQOL, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), was a secondary end point. Differences between group means in global health status (GHS), 5-item functioning, and 9 symptoms/single-item measures at week 1 of cycle 1 and end-of- cycles 3 and 6 were examined using the screening (baseline) score as a covariate in analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Overall EORTC QLQ-C30 compliance was 75.2%, 89.5%, and 89.9% at week 1 of cycle 1 and end-of-cycles 3 and 6, respectively. Patients treated with BR reported improvements in Cognitive Functioning, Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Emotional Functioning, and GHS as well as reduction in dyspnea, constipation, and fatigue at some, but not all, time points. Patients treated with standard therapy reported less nausea/vomiting at one time point. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients treated with standard therapy, patients treated with BR reported better quality of life in several areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".