MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized phase III U.S./Canadian intergroup trial (SWOG S9704) comparing CHOP ± R for eight cycles to CHOP ± R for six cycles followed by autotransplant for patients with high-intermediate (H-Int) or high IPI grade diffuse aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

2011· article· en· W2309349001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pat Stiff, Joseph M. Unger, James R. Cook, L.S. Constine, Stephen Couban, Thomas C. Shea, Jane N. Winter, Thomas P. Miller, R. Tubbs, Deborah Marcellus, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Kevin Barton, Glenn Mills, Michael LeBlanc, L. Rimsa, Stephen J. Forman, R I Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineCHOPGastroenterologyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointSurgeryConfidence intervalChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8001 Background: This SWOG led intergroup trial investigated the benefit of autotransplant in 1st remission patients with bulky stage II, III, and IV H-Int/High IPI diffuse NHL after 5 cycles of CHOP±R, as previously suggested by European studies. Methods: 397 patients (pts) up to age 65 from 40 sites were enrolled between 9/97-12/07 and induced with 5 cycles of CHOP (n=215) or CHOP-R (after 3/03; n=182). Pts with ≥ PR were randomized between CHOP±R x 1 followed by autotransplant using TBI or BCNU based regimens, vs CHOP±R x 3. Primary endpoints were toxicity, and 2 yr PFS and OS for randomized pts with sample size chosen to detect a hazard ratio between arms 1.50 with 82% power. Results: Of 370 induction eligible pts 253 were randomized to standard (128) or transplant (125) therapies; 35% had High IPI . Reasons for non-randomization included progression (66), and refusal (23). On the transplant arm, 9 never received transplant and 6 had fatal toxicities (lung-3). On the standard arm, 3 did not receive CHOP±R and 3 had fatal toxicities. Forty-five transplant and 67 standard therapy pts have progressed or died: 2 yr PFS was 69 and 56% respectively [hazard ratio: 1.72 (95% CI: 1.18-2.51) p = .005]. Thirty-seven transplant and 47 standard therapy pts have died: 2 yr OS was 74 and 71% respectively [hazard ratio 1.24 (95% CI: 0.81-1.91) p = .32). Based on exploratory analyses, there was a significant differential treatment effect between the H-Int and High IPI pts for both PFS (interaction p value = 0.02) and OS (interaction p value = 0.01): for transplant vs standard arms, the 2 yr PFS was 66% vs 63% for the H-Int IPI pts and 75% vs. 41% for the High IPI pts; the 2 yr OS was 70% vs 75% for the H-Int IPI pts and 82% vs 64% for the high IPI pts. There was no differential treatment interaction by histology (B vs T) for either PFS (p=.43) or OS (p=.53), or for B-cell pts by induction (CHOP-R vs CHOP) for PFS (p=.35) or OS (p=.29). Conclusions: For advanced stage H-Int and High IPI diffuse aggressive NHL, early autotransplant improves PFS for responders, including those induced with CHOP-R, with a stronger outcome seen for those with High IPI grade.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207