MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recommendations for revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma

2006· article· en· W2269217367 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Cheson, Beate Pfistner, Malik E. Juweid, Sandra J. Horning, Bertrand Coiffier, Randy D. Gascoyne, Richard I. Fisher, Anton Hagenbeek, Richard T. Hoppe, Volker Diehl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaMantle cell lymphomaFollicular lymphomaInternal medicineOncologyClinical endpointClinical trialNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaPET-CTNuclear medicinePositron emission tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7507 Background: Standardized response criteria are needed to interpret and compare clinical trials, and for approval of new therapeutic agents by regulatory agencies. Methods: The International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, JCO 17:1244, 1999) were widely adopted but were reevaluated because of limitations identified, and recent advances, notably FDG-PET, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and flow cytometry. Results: We propose the following modifications for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). For predictably PET avid histologies (PA)(e.g., diffuse large B-cell NHL (DLBCL), HL, follicular (FL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), PET pretreatment is strongly encouraged to define sites of disease, but not required. For histologies not predictably PET+ (NPA), PET should only be done if response is an endpoint. Although PET performed after ≥1 cycles of chemotherapy correlates with treatment efficacy, in the absence of data that altering therapy because of PET results improves outcome, mid-treatment PET should only be done in a clinical trial. PET is essential to assess response in DLBCL and HL, but only in FL and MCL if response is the endpoint. For NPA histologic subtypes, PET should only be used if PET+ prior to therapy and response is a major endpoint. Present data are inadequate to recommend PET for routine post-treatment surveillance. The new definition for CR includes: 1) no signs or symptoms of disease; 2) PET- in a PA lymphoma, or negative CT in NPA lymphoma. 3) Normal bone marrow by morphology, or if indeterminate, negative by IHC, flow and/or molecular genetic studies. CR unconfirmed (CRu) is no longer included. PR is defined as 1) ≥ 50% decrease in tumor size, but PET+ at prior PA sites, or 2) ≥ 50% decrease in tumor size, but CT+ and PET- if PET- prior to treatment. Bone marrow is irrelevant if positive pre-treatment. Stable disease is neither PR nor progressive disease, PET+ only at prior sites of disease. Progressive/ relapsed disease requires ≥ 50% increase in disease or new lesions that are PET+ if PA lymphoma. PET does not replace a biopsy before initiating new therapy. Conclusions: We hope these revised recommendations will be adopted by study groups and regulatory agencies to facilitate the development of new and more effective therapies to improve patient outcome. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.029

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207