B-IGEV (bortezomib plus IGEV) versus IGEV before high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: a randomized, phase II trial of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized, multicenter study evaluates the addition of bortezomib (13 mg/m(2)) to IGEV (B-IGEV) in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). Patients received either four courses of IGEV alone (n = 40) or B-IGEV (n = 40). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) proportion, evaluated by FDG-PET, after induction chemotherapy. CR proportion was 39% with B-IGEV and 53% with IGEV. PFS and OS were similar between the two groups (two-year PFS: 58% vs 56%; two-year OS: 93% vs 81%). The PET-negative status after treatment was the only variable favorably influencing both PFS (two-year PFS: 77% vs 40%; p = 0.002) and OS (two-year OS: 100% vs 76%; p < 0.001). Toxicity was overall similar with the two regimens. The addition of bortezomib to IGEV does not improve response in relapsed/refractory HL patients. However, its favorable therapeutic and safety profile, and the prognostic role of pre-transplant PET negativity in patients receiving IGEV-based regimens are confirmed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".