Effect of unintentional cyclophosphamide underdosing on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma response to chemotherapy: a retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between March 2012 and March 2013, a miscommunication in labelling between the drug compounder supplier and cancer centre pharmacies resulted in accidental overdilution of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine used by several cancer centres in Canada. At our centre, 177 hematology patients were affected, among whom the largest subset of patients was those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. In this study, we evaluated the effect of such underdosing on disease response. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving all patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received at least 1 chemotherapy cycle containing diluted cyclophosphamide at our centre and compared them with a historical group of patients matched by stage and age. The primary outcome was event-free survival (a composite of disease progression or death). Secondary outcomes included complete remission and overall response rate. Groups were compared using unpaired Student t, χ2 or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. Survival analysis was done using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Event-free survival was no different between groups (log-rank p = 0.99). At a median follow-up of 548 days, progression or death occurred in 21 of 77 patients in the case group (27.3%) and in 24 of 74 patients in the control group (32.4%) (p = 0.5). At the end of treatment, complete remission was achieved in 41 patients in the case group (53.2%) and 43 patients in the control group (57.3%) (p = 0.6), whereas overall response rate was 71.4% in the case group and 66.7% in the control group (p = 0.5). INTERPRETATION: Compared with a historical control group, we found no differences in event-free survival or response rates among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received 1 or more doses of accidentally diluted cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".