MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2524477322 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.745.745

Gemcitabine, Dexamethasone, Cisplatin (GDP) Compared to Dexamethasone, Cytarabine, Cisplatin (DHAP) Chemotherapy Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Relapsed and Refractory Aggressive Lymphomas: Final Results of the Randomized Phase III NCIC CTG Study LY12

2012· article· en· W2524477322 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Crump, John Kuruvilla, Stephen Couban, David MacDonald, Vishal Kukreti, C. Tom Kouroukis, Ralph M. Meyer, Morel Rubinger, Rena Buckstein, Kevin Imrie, Massimo Federico, Nicola Di Renzo, Kang Howson‐Jan, Tara Baetz, Leonard Kaizer, Michael Voralia, Harold J. Olney, A. Robert Turner, Jonathan Sussman, Annette E. Hay, Marina Djurfeldt, Bingshu E. Chen, Lois E. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversité de MontréalQueen's UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of ManitobaJuravinski Cancer CentreCredit Valley HospitalSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyCancerCare ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDHAPMedicineInternal medicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationTransplantationOncologyGemcitabineUrologyGastroenterologyChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 745 Background: The optimum chemotherapy combination prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) has not been defined. We previously established the safety and efficacy of outpatient treatment with GDP in a phase II study (Crump et al, Cancer 2004) leading to this phase III trial testing the hypothesis that GDP is as effective and less toxic than standard DHAP, and potentially associated with better quality of life (QoL) and less resource utilization. Methods: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL were stratified by IPI score at relapse (0, 1 vs 2,vs >=3 risk factors), immunophenotype (B vs T cell), disease status following initial treatment (response duration < 1yr vs duration > 1yr vs no response/PD) and prior treatment with rituximab (R); and were randomized to 2–3 21-day cycles of G 1000 mg/m2 day 1 & 8, D 40 mg day 1–4, P 75 mg/m2day 1 or standard DHAP. Pts with CR, PR (or SD, per institutional policy) proceeded to PBSC collection and ASCT. The protocol was amended 11/2005 to include R with GDP or DHAP for pts with CD20+ lymphoma. Co-primary endpoints were response rate (RR) after 2 cycles (CR/CRu/PR) according to 1999 International Workshop criteria, and transplantation rate; FDG-PET was not used to determine response. Using a non-inferiority design, the study was powered to exclude a 10% difference in RR between GDP and DHAP (α 0.05, power 80%). Other endpoints included toxicity, event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS), QoL and an economic analysis. FACT-G, FACT-CNS and FACT-LYM instruments and validated lymphoma-specific questions were used to assess QoL. Results of a second randomization to post-ASCT rituximab consolidation vs observation for pts with CD20+ lymphoma will be reported subsequently. Results: From 8/2003 to 11/2011, 619 pts were enrolled at 52 centres in Canada, Italy, Australia and the US (GDP 310 DHAP 309). Pt characteristics: median age 55 yrs (28.4% >60 y); histology: DLBCL 71%, PTCL 4%, ALCL 4%, transformed 14%; IPI risk factors: 0,1: 38%, 2: 29%; >3: 33%; elevated LDH 59%; prior R treatment 67%; refractory to initial therapy 31%; all baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms. In the intention to treat (ITT) population, RR for GDP was 45.2% and for DHAP 44.0%. The upper boundary of the one-sided 95.6% confidence interval for the difference in RRs was 5.67% and did not cross the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority boundary, meaning protocol-stated criteria for declaring GDP non-inferior to DHAP were met (p=0.005); results were robust when assessed using a per-protocol analysis. 362/554 pts (65.3%) with B cell NHL received R with protocol therapy: RRs were similar between arms in pts with and without prior R exposure, and with and without R added to GDP or DHAP. The transplantation rate was 51.8% for GDP vs 49.3% for DHAP (per protocol analysis; p = 0.49); 6 pts in each arm could not mobilize adequate PBSCs. At a median follow-up of 53 months, 4 year EFS was 25.6% and 26.1% (HR 0.99, p=0.95) and 4 year OS 39.0% and 39.1% (HR 1.03, p=0.78) for GDP and DHAP, respectively. Pts receiving GDP experienced less grade 3–4 toxicity (47 vs 61%, p=0.0003), including febrile neutropenia (9 vs 23%, p<0.0001), platelet transfusion during the first 2 treatment cycles (18% vs. 32%, p < 0.0001) and AEs requiring hospitalization (18 vs 30%, p=0.0005). One pt in each arm died from infection during GDP/DHAP therapy (0.3%). Compared to baseline, superior mean and greater-than-minimally-important change scores for QoL were seen during and/or after 2 treatment cycles in the GDP group when assessed using FACT-LYM, the Trial Outcome Index for FACT-LYM and the lymphoma-specific subscale. Stratified by important baseline characteristics, in univariate analysis no variables were associated with response; in multivariate analysis, ECOG PS, stage and number of sites of disease were significantly associated with OS; age and stage were associated with EFS. Conclusion: The response rate to GDP is not inferior to the standard regimen DHAP prior to ASCT for aggressive lymphomas and GDP resulted in similar rates of transplantation, EFS and OS. GDP can be given in the outpatient setting with significantly less toxicity, superior QoL scores and reduced need for hospitalization. This study supports the use of GDP as a new standard in practice and in future studies focused on improving salvage therapy approaches. Disclosures: Crump: Roche Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Gemcitabine for treatment of lymphoma. Kuruvilla:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Macdonald:Roche Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kukreti:Roche: Honoraria. Kouroukis:Roche: Honoraria. Meyer:Dr. Meyer has received honoraria from Lilly re role on a DSMC: Honoraria. Olney:Roche: Consultancy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→