MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2554311364 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.687.687

Response-Adapted Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (DLBCL)Based On Early [18F] FDG-PET Scanning: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (E3404)

2012· article· en· W2554311364 on OpenAlexaff
Lode J. Swinnen, Hailun Li, Andrew Quon, Randy D. Gascoyne, Erik A. Ranheim, Thomas M. Habermann, Ranjana H. Advani, Brad S. Kahl, Sandra J. Horning

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaInternal medicineCHOPNuclear medicineStage (stratigraphy)OncologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 687 Background: A persistently positive PET scan after just a few cycles of therapy is predictive of a poor clinical outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Prior data suggested that about one third of patients remain PET positive after 2–4 cycles, with ≤ 20% 2 year progression-free survival (PFS) for such patients. A response-adapted strategy was studied in E3404 to test the hypothesis that an early treatment change to four cycles of R-ICE might reduce the treatment failure rate of patients whose PET scan remained positive after an initial 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Study Design: Previously untreated patients with DLBCL stage III, IV, or bulky II, with measurable disease, HIV negative, and with adequate organ reserve, were eligible. PET/CT scan was performed before treatment and again after 3 cycles of R-CHOP. A fourth cycle of R-CHOP was given while the scan was centrally reviewed and scored as either positive or negative for FDG-avid tumor by a single reviewer using criteria based on modifications of the Harmonization Criteria. Persistently PET-positive patients received 4 cycles of R-ICE, while PET-negative patients received 2 more cycles of R-CHOP, for a total of 6 cycles. PET/CT was performed again at the end of treatment. A ≥45% 2 year PFS for mid-treatment PET- positive patients was viewed as a promising result, with 88% power if 33 such patients were accrued. Total accrual of 99 patients was therefore planned. Results: Of 100 patients accrued, 78 were eligible; all but 1 ineligibility was based on central pathology review. Fifty-eight were male; median age was 62 years (20–74); 13% IPI 0–1, 31% IPI 2, 37% IPI 3, and 19% IPI 4–5. Seventy-four of 78 (95%) patients completed the first 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Of 72 patients continuing treatment, 67 (93%) completed protocol treatment: 83% of mid-treatment PET-positive and 93% of PET-negative patients. Of 74 patients undergoing mid-treatment PET scan, 12 (16%) were scored as positive, and 62 (84%) as negative. At the end of treatment, 13% were scored as positive, and 87% as negative. Two-year PFS, from the time of study entry, was 72% among all eligible patients. Two year PFS from the time of mid-treatment PET scan was 45% (90% CI, 21–67%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-positive, and 77% (90% CI 67–85%) for patients scored as mid-treatment PET-negative. The 80% confidence interval (corresponding to a test with a one-sided type I error of 10%) did not include the null hypothesis of 25%, implying that the results met the pre-specified threshold. Among all 78 eligible patients, 10 have died (13%); 5-year overall survival was 87% (90% CI 78–92%) Three-year overall survival was 67% (90% CI 40–84%) for mid-treatment PET-positive patients, and 93% (90% CI 85–97%) for mid-treatment PET-negative patients. Conclusions: The 2-year PFS for mid-treatment PET-positive patients met the threshold to be considered promising, but the confidence interval was wider than expected due to the small patient number. In addition, the inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mid-treatment PET scans as a binary variable in this study (studied and reported separately in Horning SJ et al. Blood 2010) implies that treatment modification based on early PET scanning should remain confined to clinical trials. Disclosures: Swinnen: Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Quon:Genentech: Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kahl:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: stock, stock Other.

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)0.004
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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