MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

CHOP-R (Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, Prednisone, Rituximab) Compared to CPOP-R (Cyclophosphamide, Pixantrone, Vincristine, Prednisone, Rituxamib) in First-Line Therapy of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): An Interim Analysis.

2007· article· en· W2549915480 on OpenAlexaff
Raoul Herbrecht, Stephen Couban, Florian Weißinger, Igor Gorbatchevsky, Richard H. van der Jagt

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineVincristineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaPrednisoneRegimenCHOPInterim analysisCyclophosphamideFebrile neutropeniaGastroenterologyOncologySurgeryLymphomaNeutropeniaChemotherapyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The CHOP-R regimen is the standard regimen for first-line therapy of patients with DLBCL. Pixantrone (BBR 2778) is a novel aza-anthracenedione with structural similarities to mitoxantrone. In a phase 1/2 study of CPOP in 65 patients with relapsed NHL who had received a first-line anthracycline-containing regimen, patients received pixantrone at 80–180 mg/m2. This study indicated substantial activity with an overall response rate of 77% and complete response (CR) rate of 54% with acceptable toxicity. Studies in indolent NHL demonstrated that the combination of pixantrone with rituximab is well tolerated and more active than rituximab alone (JCO, 24(18S), 2006:7578). To evaluate the safety and activity of CPOP-R with special regard to cardiac safety in the first-line setting, a randomized phase 2 study in untreated patients with DLBCL comparing CPOP-R to CHOP-R is being conducted. Patients with untreated, histologically confirmed CD20-positive DLBCL receive CHOP-R or CPOP-R every 21 days for 6–8 cycles. An interim analysis for efficacy was prospectively planned to be performed when 40 patients had completed 4 cycles of therapy to test whether the CR rate of CPOP-R (pixantrone dose of 150 mg/m2) is, with 95% confidence, not more than 15% less than the CR rate of CHOP-R. We report the results of this analysis, which included 40 patients (21 CPOP-R and 19 CHOP-R) who had completed 4 cycles or had prematurely withdrawn from the study. Preliminary safety data (CPOP-R=27 patients, CHOP-R=30 patients) were also evaluated. CR rates after 4 cycles based on investigators’assessment were similar between arms (CPOP-R=33%, CHOP-R=37%). In general, adverse events were equal between arms. There were no more grade 3–4 adverse events (41% CPOP-R vs 50% CHOP-R) and no more grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (33% in CPOP-R vs 40% in CHOP-R) in the CPOP-R arm compared to the CHOP-R arm. 8 patients in each arm had asymptomatic absolute LVEF declines of ≥10%. 3 patients in the CPOP-R arm had a LVEF decline of >15% and ≤20% compared to 5 patients in the CHOP-R arm. No patients in the CPOP-R arm had a >20% LVEF decline compared to 2 patients in the CHOP-R arm. No heart failure or deaths resulting from heart failure have been reported. Infections reported as serious adverse events occurred in 1 patient (4%) in the CPOP-R arm and 3 patients (10%) in the CHOP-R arm. Grade 3–4 neutropenia was similar (CPOP-R = 34%, CHOP-R = 30%). Febrile neutropenia was less frequent in the CPOP-R arm (4% vs 23%). There were 2 deaths within 30 days of the last dose of study drug on CPOP-R arm. Both patients were > 80 years; 1 of the events was attributed to study treatment secondary to neutropenic infection. No deaths were reported in the CHOP-R arm. Based on this preliminary analysis, we conclude that for 1st-line therapy of patients with DLBCL, CPOP-R has similar activity to CHOP-R with no more toxicity. Further follow-up is required.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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