MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Study by the Puget Sound Oncology Consortium (PSOC) of Gemcitabine (G), Carboplatin (C), Dexamethasone (D), and Rituximab (R) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma

2008· article· en· W2557689159 on OpenAlexaff
Aj ay K Gopal, Oliver W. Press, Andrei R. Shustov, Stephen H. Petersdorf, Ted Gooley, Jasmine T. Daniels, Mitchell Garrison, George F. Gjerset, Matthew Lonergan, Anne Murphy, Julie C. Smith, John M. Pagel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineSalvage therapyRegimenRituximabChemotherapy regimenCarboplatinGastroenterologyLenalidomidePhases of clinical researchSurgeryOncologyLymphomaChemotherapyDexamethasone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Combination chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for most patients with relapsed lymphoma. Unfortunately, the most frequently used salvage regimens such as ICE or DHAP often require inpatient hospitalization for administration and must be used with caution in the elderly, frail, or those with comorbidities. In order to develop a safe, effective, outpatient salvage therapy for the treatment of lymphoma, PSOC prospectively evaluated 2–4 cycles of the novel regimen GCD±R. Eligibility criteria included: age ≥18 yrs, measurable relapsed/refractory disease, no active CNS disease, PS 22, ANC ≥1500/μl, platelets ≥100k/μl, bili/Cr <2x ULN, and no platinum refractory disease. Therapy included G 1000 mg/m2 days(d) 1 and 8, C AUC =5 d 1, D 40 mg daily d 1–4, and R (for patients with CD20+ tumors) 375 mg/m2 d 8 (cycled every 21 days). G-CSF use was at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients without disease progression after 2 cycles could continue up to a total of 4 cycles. Fifty-five patients were enrolled and 51 were evaluable for response (primary endpoint). Baseline characteristics (n =51) included: median age 58 (range 19–79), female 21 (41%), stage III/IV 45 (88%), elevated LDH 17 (33%), median # prior therapies 2 (range 1–8), prior anthracycline 43 (84%), prior platinum 7 (14%), prior high-dose therapy (HDT) and stem cell transplant (SCT) 6 (12%). In addition, 88% of patients with CD20-expressing tumors had received prior R. Histologies included classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) = 14, follicular lymphoma (FL) =11, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) = 8, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) = 7, marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) = 4, small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) = 3, Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) = 3, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) = 1. The overall response rate (ORR) was 67%, with 31% achieving a CR/CRu. In addition, 4 of 7 (57%) patients relapsing after platinum-based chemotherapy, and 4 of 6 (67%) patients relapsing after HDT and SCT achieved a CR/CRu. The table summarizes response rates by histology. Peripheral blood stem cells were successfully mobilized in all 17 (100%) patients in whom this intervention was attempted following GCD±R and G-CSF (median yield of 10.9 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg; range, 5.0–24.1 × 106) with a median time to first apheresis of 14d after initiating chemotherapy (range, 11–19d). Despite 43% and 67% of patients developing grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (CTCAE 3.0), rates of ≥grade 3 febrile neutropenia (8%), infection (16%), and bleeding (8%) were acceptable. Other most common non-hematologic toxicities of ≥grade 3 included laboratory (22%) and cardiovascular (16%). There were no treatment-related deaths. With a median follow up of 12 months, 35 (68%) patients are alive and 22 (43%) are progression-free. In this prospective multicenter trial we demonstrate that GCD(R) is a safe and effective outpatient regimen for the treatment of relapsed lymphoma, with particular efficacy in HL, FL, MCL, and MZL (all >70% ORR) and can successfully mobilize PBSC. These results provide an additional, outpatient-based therapeutic option for such patients and set the stage for future randomized trials directly comparing salvage regimens for lymphoma. Table: Response rates by histology Histology n Overall Response (%) CR/CRu (%) HL 14 12 (86) 7 (50) FL 11 9 (82) 4 (36) DLBCL 8 5 (63) 1 (13) MCL 7 5 (71) 3 (43) MZL 4 3 (75) 1 (25) PTCL 3 0 (0) 0 (0) SLL 3 0 (0) 0(0) LPL 1 0 (0) 0(0) Total 51 34 (67) 16 (31)

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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