Safety and efficacy of different lenalidomide starting doses in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of an international multicenter double-blinded randomized phase II trial*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different lenalidomide starting doses in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). CLL patients were randomized to receive lenalidomide at initial doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg/d (N = 103). Doses were escalated by 5 mg every 28-d up to a maximum of 25 mg/d; dose reductions in up to 5 mg decrements were permitted. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Ten patients died during therapy (four deaths considered as related to lenalidomide); 12 patients experienced second primary malignancies. The most common cause for treatment discontinuation was AEs. Overall response rates were similar across arms. Progression-free survival and overall survival rates were longer in patients who escalated treatment (to 15 or 20 mg/d) versus those who did not. Lower starting doses allowed subsequent dose escalation of lenalidomide while maintaining an acceptable tolerability profile in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".