MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2532960187 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.153.153

Mature Results From ECOG Study E1405 – A Phase II Study of VcR-CVAD with Maintenance Rituximab for Previously Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma

2012· article· en· W2532960187 on OpenAlexaff
Brad S. Kahl, Hailun Li, Mitchell R. Smith, Randy D. Gascoyne, David T. Yang, Elisabeth Paietta, Ranjana H. Advani, Sandra J. Horning

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenRituximabBortezomibMantle cell lymphomaVincristineInternal medicineSurgeryCyclophosphamideMaintenance therapyChemotherapy regimenPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyUrologyChemotherapyMultiple myelomaLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 153 Introduction Modified R-hyperCVAD is a well-tolerated induction regimen with a high response rate in MCL. We hypothesized that the incorporation of bortezomib (Velcadea) into this regimen would enhance the complete response rates. We further hypothesized that the addition of maintenance rituximab (MR) would improve remission duration. The new regimen, VcR-CVAD with MR, was tested for safety and efficacy in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Methods Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, previously untreated MCL, PS 0–2, and adequate end organ function. The treatment plan included: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1 and 4, rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV day 1, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 IV over 3 hrs q 12 hrs × 6 doses days 1–3, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 48 hrs days 1–2, vincristine 1 mg IV day 3, dexamethasone 40 mg po days 1–4. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for 6 cycles and all patients received G-CSF support. Patients achieving SD, PR, or CR received MR administered as 4 weekly treatments every 6 months for 2 years (protocol therapy). Patients could elect to receive high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) off protocol rather than MR. The primary endpoint of the trial was the CR rate, defined as PET-negative, marrow-negative, to VcR-CVAD induction therapy. Results Seventy-five eligible patients were enrolled between 5/07 and 10/08. Baseline characteristics include median age 62 (40–76), 58M:17F, 92% stage III/IV, and 40% with elevated LDH. MIPI risk distribution included 37% low, 36% intermediate, 19% high, 8% unknown. Sixty-eight patients (91%) completed VcR-CVAD induction therapy. Reasons for treatment discontinuation included PD (1), toxicity (4), and patient preference (2). The ORR was 97% (73/75), CR rate 68% (51/75) and PR rate 29% (22/75). Of the 22 PR patients, 11 were so coded due to no bone marrow evaluation and/or PET imaging post therapy. The CR rate in the 64 completely restaged patients was 80%. Forty-four patients proceeded to protocol planned MR while 22 patients received SCT consolidation off protocol. With a median follow up of 3.6 years, the 3-yr PFS for the MR cohort (n = 44) and entire cohort (n = 75) are 73% and 74%, respectively. OS at 3-yrs is 88%, with no difference between MR and SCT patients. The major toxicity of the induction treatment regimen was expected myelosuppression. Grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities were rare. No patients developed grade 3–4 neuropathy. There were no serious toxicities during MR. There were no treatment related deaths. Conclusion The VcR-CVAD induction produced high overall OR (97%) and CR rates (68%) in a representative MCL patient population treated in a cooperative group setting. The 3-yr PFS (74%) and OS (88%) are highly encouraging. Remissions in patients receiving MR were as durable as patients receiving SCT consolidation. The value of bortezomib, when added to conventional chemotherapy, is currently being tested in a randomized intergroup trial (E1411). Disclosures: Kahl: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bortezomib as frontline treatment of mantle cell lymphoma. Smith:Millennium: Research Funding. Advani:Genentech: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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