MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2570654636 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.685.685

Addition of Rituximab Improves Outcome of HIV Negative Patients with Burkitt Lymphoma Treated with the Lmba Protocol: Results of the Randomized Intergroup (GRAALL-Lysa) LMBA02 Protocol. (IGR sponsored LMBA02, NCT00180882)

2012· article· en· W2570654636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Ribrag, Serge Koscielny, Krimo Bouabdallah, Gilles Salles, Olivier Casasnovas, Christian Récher, Rémy Gressin, Jérôme Cornillon, Raoul Herbrecht, Sylviane Iacobelli, Jacques Bosq, Bertrand Coiffier

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRituximabMedicineInternal medicineRegimenCytarabineChemotherapy regimenRandomizationCyclophosphamideRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyLymphomaOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 685 Background: Intensive chemotherapy is now considered as a standard of care in adult patients with Burkitt Lymphoma (BL). Although some single arm studies suggested that adding rituximab to these intensive short-course regimen could improve patientÕs outcome, no randomized study have been reported so far. Methods: To evaluate the potential benefit of adding rituximab to intensive chemotherapy, we conducted a phase III trial comparing the standard LMBA protocol (Divine et al, Ann Oncol 1995) to the same regimen plus rituximab. Rituximab (375 mg/m2) was given on day 1 and 6 during the first 2 courses of COPADM. Patient eligibility criteria included age >18 years, HIV negativity and previously untreated BL. The primary study objective was event-free survival (EFS). A study sample size of 250 pts was estimated in order to detect a 15% gain in EFS (two-side test, power 90%, type 1 error 5%). Secondary objectives were safety and overall survival. Treatment was adapted on disease extension (group B vs C) and age for patients from the C group (age <40; 40–59 and >59). Group C included patients with bone marrow and/or CNS involvement, and group B all the other patients. Methotrexate, cyclophosphamide and cytarabine doses were adapted to age in the group C. Lenograstim was given prophylactically to the pts. The randomization was stratified on disease extension (group B vs C) and age. Results: From October 2004 to September 2010, 257 patients from 45 centers were included; 128 in the Rituximab arm and 129 in the standard arm. Median age was 47 (26% were > 60), M/F ratio was 2.5, serum LDH level was > normal in 75% of the patients, and 11% had a performance status (PS)>2. The two treatment arms were well balanced for pretreatment characteristics, except for age and PS. Patients were older in the Rituximab arm (30%>60 years old vs 17% in the standard arm) or had a higher PS>2 (17% with PS>2 vs 7%). With a median follow-up of 38 months (range 0.3 to 79), patients treated in the rituximab arm had a better EFS (3 year EFS 76%; 95% CI: 69–84 vs 64% in standard arm; 95%CI: 55–72; Logrank P value stratified on treatment group=0.046), and Overall Survival (3 year OS 82%; 95% CI: 77–90 vs 71% in standard arm; 95%CI: 63–79; Logrank P value, stratified on treatment group=0.016) (Figure). Fifty-eight patients died. Causes of death were lymphoma (9 in the rituximab arm and 22 in the standard arm), toxicity (9 in the rituximab arm and 7 in the standard arm), and other causes (4 in the rituximab arm and 7 in the standard arm). Safety was similar in both arms for duration of grade 4 neutropenia, number of platelet or red cell transfusions, minor or major infection. Conclusions: The addition of rituximab to LMBA protocol improves EFS and OS in adult BL HIV negative. No adverse and/or increased toxicity was observed when rituximab was added to this intensive chemotherapy regimen. Toxic death rate was similar to our previous phase II experience despite a higher median age in this randomized multicenter trial. Disclosures: Ribrag: Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of myelofibrosis and is being investigated in combination with panobinostat, an investigational product, in this indication. This abstract reports on a clinical trial conducted outside the US. All patients have provided written informed consent. Salles:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Pfizer: Advisory board member Other. Coiffier:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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