[Preliminary study on DHAP regimen for patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The treatment of the patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma(NHL) remains difficult. It was reported that DHAP regimen(cisplatin + Ara-C + dexamthsone) was an effective salvage therapy, but there was no report about it in China. The current study was designed to observe the efficacy and toxicity of DHAP regimen for the patients with relapsed and refractory NHL. METHOD: Seventeen patients with relapsed and 10 with refractory intermediate or high grade NHL was involved in this study. These patients were treated with cytarabine 1 g/m2 intravenous(i.v.) every 12 hours on day 1 to 2, cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 to 4, dexamethone 40 mg i.v. on day 1 to 4. Four patients with CR after DHAP were followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation(APBPCT). RESULTS: Overt responses to DHAP were seen in 12 patients (44.4%) including 8 complete responses(CR) (29.6%) and 4 partial responses (PR) (14.8%). The effective release time lasted a median of 4.8 months. Median survival time was 8.3 months. 1-year and 2-year survival rate were 30.8% and 19.3%, respectively. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity; 15 patients(57.7%) had grade III-IV neutropenia and 21 patients (80.8%) had grade III-IV thromcytopenia, but there was no treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that DHAP regimen is an effective salvage therapy for the patients with relapsed and refractory NHL, but the remission duration time is short and long-term prognosis remains poor. High dose chemotherapy supported by APBPCT is necessary for improvement in long-term survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".