Randomized phase 3 study in low‐grade lymphoma comparing maintenance anti‐CD20 antibody with observation after induction therapy: A trial of the ECOG‐ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1496)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group study (E1496), maintenance rituximab (MR) was reported to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison with observation (OBS) alone in patients with indolent lymphoma after induction chemotherapy. Here the long-term follow-up of the same patient cohort is presented. METHODS: Patients with indolent lymphoma received induction chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP). Patients with stable disease or a better response were then randomized to weekly rituximab (375 mg/m(2) × 4 doses) every 6 months for 2 years (MR) or to OBS. The primary endpoint was PFS; the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicities. RESULTS: Of the 387 patients who initially received CVP induction, 158 were randomized to MR, and 153 were randomized to OBS. After a median follow-up of 11.5 years, patients on MR had longer median PFS (4.8 years) than patients on OBS (1.3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P < .0001). However, there was no difference in OS between MR and OBS (10-year OS, 67% vs 59%; median OS, 13.5 years vs not reached; HR, 0.91; P = .69). Other than MR, only minimal residual disease after induction therapy was significantly associated with PFS on multivariate analysis (HR, 0.71; P = .02). A low initial tumor burden, minimal residual disease, follicular histology, a low Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, and female sex were associated with longer OS. There was no increase in the rate of second primary malignancies with MR vs OBS. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up, MR did not influence OS. The PFS benefit was maintained. MR should be considered optional for patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma. Cancer 2016;122:2996-3004. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".